Iran Nuclear Deal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

This deal will be about as good as the one cut with Hitler by Neville Chamberlain. He was shocked when planes started bombing Germany. He was heard to say “but…but they promised”.

Has any terrorist state ever kept their word on any agreement?

Nope!

You see bad guys lie a lot and the naïve left continues to do what stupid people do. They have to learn the same lesson repeatedly yet never understand it.

By the way, Cuba is so happy that Obama opened relations with them that they are demanding billions from the US for all the years that we harmed them economically.

The left will never get it. Their entire philosophy is based on a fairy tale.

222

[quote]2busy wrote:
Apparently Bill wasn’t qualified to comment on that treaty.[/quote]

It’s disingenuous to compare the nuclear programs of the two states. We have to keep in mind that the DPRK withdrew from the NPT on January 11, 2003. IAEA Inspectors and their equipment were removed from the country. It wasn’t until February 27, 2003 that US officials confirmed that North Korea had restarted the five-megawatt nuclear reactor that had been frozen by the Agreed Framework, and not until October 9, 2006 that North Korea conducted its first underground nuclear test near the village of P’unggye. Is the Bush administration somehow at fault for a tinpot despot’s imprudent recalcitrance?

223

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Legally be able to pursue nuclear arms? What are you basing that statement on? Iran is party to the NPT, which forbids non-nuclear weapon states from pursuing atomic arms. The accession to the IAEA’s Additional Protocol will have to be permanent at the end of the JCPOA or they will face a renewed sanctions regime.[/quote]

Bastard, you beat me to it!

The answer to the question posed in your second sentence, by the way, is “nothing.”[/quote]

I saved you some typing. But hey, it may be a bit much to ask for those discussing nuclear non-proliferation policy to be at least somewhat familiar with the treaty that established the non-proliferation regime. To be fair, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is a very dense document. Perhaps it is unreasonable for me to expect anyone to exert the effort of reading five pages.

224

[quote]ZEB wrote:
This deal will be about as good as the one cut with Hitler by Neville Chamberlain. He was shocked when planes started bombing Germany.
[/quote]

Planes bombing Germany? That is a bit shocking.

225

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Textbook case of what Bismark is talking about when he cautions against listening to people who don’t know anything about foreign affairs:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m still wondering what we got out of this deal?[/quote]

Nothing. Not a damn thing. We got a promise that they will not try to make a bomb for 15 years.[/quote]

No. As I wrote a page ago (it has been slightly altered):

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
150 inspectors in the country, IAEA technical monitors and international scientists at Fordow, 98 percent reduction in uranium-stockpile size and a 3.67 percent cap on enrichment, late-generation centrifuges surrendered, Arak dispossessed of plutonium-production capacity, 25 years of IAEA monitoring of nuclear facilities. The 24 days entail some risk, particularly if the Iranians find a way to stall further, but, as Moniz said, this is not a matter of dishwashing (and the extant nuclear facilities themselves will not be subject to any delay: they will be monitored continuously). Nuclear weapons production is heavy industry, and an interested American security apparatus is a hell of a thing to try to hide from. Again, though, it is absolutely inarguable that the agreement effectively destroys Iran’s capacity to develop a nuclear weapon for up to a quarter of a century (and, indeed, beyond: they aren’t going to get back much of what’s taken from them). There is no question about this. Perhaps we do go to war in 25, 40, 50 years; perhaps we don’t. Perhaps the Iranian regime and, more importantly, Iranian people get pushed beyond the tipping point and come to loudly say that American good will is preferable to the teeth of American military might. Perhaps. This is the nature of the game. If you want a sure thing, bet against the New York Jets.)[/quote]

^ A little bit more than “a promise” and/or “nothing.” [/quote]

We’ll see. The above will depend on transparency and enforcement. 150 inspectors in country is about 4,200 square miles per inspector, that’s about triple the size of Rhode Island. That’s a lot of ground to cover per person…

226

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Textbook case of what Bismark is talking about when he cautions against listening to people who don’t know anything about foreign affairs:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m still wondering what we got out of this deal?[/quote]

Nothing. Not a damn thing. We got a promise that they will not try to make a bomb for 15 years.[/quote]

No. As I wrote a page ago (it has been slightly altered):

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
150 inspectors in the country, IAEA technical monitors and international scientists at Fordow, 98 percent reduction in uranium-stockpile size and a 3.67 percent cap on enrichment, late-generation centrifuges surrendered, Arak dispossessed of plutonium-production capacity, 25 years of IAEA monitoring of nuclear facilities. The 24 days entail some risk, particularly if the Iranians find a way to stall further, but, as Moniz said, this is not a matter of dishwashing (and the extant nuclear facilities themselves will not be subject to any delay: they will be monitored continuously). Nuclear weapons production is heavy industry, and an interested American security apparatus is a hell of a thing to try to hide from. Again, though, it is absolutely inarguable that the agreement effectively destroys Iran’s capacity to develop a nuclear weapon for up to a quarter of a century (and, indeed, beyond: they aren’t going to get back much of what’s taken from them). There is no question about this. Perhaps we do go to war in 25, 40, 50 years; perhaps we don’t. Perhaps the Iranian regime and, more importantly, Iranian people get pushed beyond the tipping point and come to loudly say that American good will is preferable to the teeth of American military might. Perhaps. This is the nature of the game. If you want a sure thing, bet against the New York Jets.)[/quote]

^ A little bit more than “a promise” and/or “nothing.” [/quote]

We’ll see. The above will depend on transparency and enforcement. 150 inspectors in country is about 4,200 square miles per inspector, that’s about triple the size of Rhode Island. That’s a lot of ground to cover per person…

[/quote]

The IAEA has improved technologies that supplement inspections with real-time data. Electronic and fiber optic seals, laser sensors, smart cameras and encrypted networks allow inspectors to closely monitor Iran�¢??s nuclear infrastructure, in real time, from their command post in Vienna. This mitigates concerns regarding limited manpower and the 24 day inspection waiting period.

There also exists a virtuous circle between the IAEA and Western intelligence. If the US intelligence community, with its multiple agencies - utilizing spies, eavesdropping on communications, breaking coded messages - reveals problems, it can bring its intelligence on the matter to the IAEA. Obama can ease the concerns of Congress by increasing the funding for intelligence collection, analysis and target development on the Iranian nuclear program by as much as $ 1 billion a year, a small price to pay for a nuclear free Iran.

Inspections also bolster the intelligence community’s understanding of the Iranian nuclear program, greatly benefiting collection efforts and the accuracy of targeting packages. As Austin Long - a security policy expert that served in Iraq as an analyst and adviser to the Multinational Force Iraq and the U.S. military - writes, “From an intelligence perspective this [inspectors continuous monitoring of Iran’s nuclear supply chain] is an unparalleled opportunity to collect, analyze and develop targeting databases on this crucial element of Iran’s ability to reconstitute its nuclear program. A bombing campaign that effectively destroyed the centrifuge manufacturing base would cripple Iran’s ability to reconstitute for years, perhaps even a decade or more. This opportunity alone should make Iran hawks gleeful.”

The full article is required reading - for proponents and detractors of the deal alike.

“If you really want to bomb Iran, take the deal”

227

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Textbook case of what Bismark is talking about when he cautions against listening to people who don’t know anything about foreign affairs:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m still wondering what we got out of this deal?[/quote]

Nothing. Not a damn thing. We got a promise that they will not try to make a bomb for 15 years.[/quote]

No. As I wrote a page ago (it has been slightly altered):

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
150 inspectors in the country, IAEA technical monitors and international scientists at Fordow, 98 percent reduction in uranium-stockpile size and a 3.67 percent cap on enrichment, late-generation centrifuges surrendered, Arak dispossessed of plutonium-production capacity, 25 years of IAEA monitoring of nuclear facilities. The 24 days entail some risk, particularly if the Iranians find a way to stall further, but, as Moniz said, this is not a matter of dishwashing (and the extant nuclear facilities themselves will not be subject to any delay: they will be monitored continuously). Nuclear weapons production is heavy industry, and an interested American security apparatus is a hell of a thing to try to hide from. Again, though, it is absolutely inarguable that the agreement effectively destroys Iran’s capacity to develop a nuclear weapon for up to a quarter of a century (and, indeed, beyond: they aren’t going to get back much of what’s taken from them). There is no question about this. Perhaps we do go to war in 25, 40, 50 years; perhaps we don’t. Perhaps the Iranian regime and, more importantly, Iranian people get pushed beyond the tipping point and come to loudly say that American good will is preferable to the teeth of American military might. Perhaps. This is the nature of the game. If you want a sure thing, bet against the New York Jets.)[/quote]

^ A little bit more than “a promise” and/or “nothing.” [/quote]

We’ll see. The above will depend on transparency and enforcement. 150 inspectors in country is about 4,200 square miles per inspector, that’s about triple the size of Rhode Island. That’s a lot of ground to cover per person…

[/quote]

The IAEA has improved technologies that supplement inspections with real-time data. Electronic and fiber optic seals, laser sensors, smart cameras and encrypted networks allow inspectors to closely monitor Iran�?�¢??s nuclear infrastructure, in real time, from their command post in Vienna. This mitigates concerns regarding limited manpower and the 24 day inspection waiting period.

There also exists a virtuous circle between the IAEA and Western intelligence. If the US intelligence community, with its multiple agencies - utilizing spies, eavesdropping on communications, breaking coded messages - reveals problems, it can bring its intelligence on the matter to the IAEA. Obama can ease the concerns of Congress by increasing the funding for intelligence collection, analysis and target development on the Iranian nuclear program by as much as $ 1 billion a year, a small price to pay for a nuclear free Iran.

Inspections also bolster the intelligence community’s understanding of the Iranian nuclear program, greatly benefiting collection efforts and the accuracy of targeting packages. As Austin Long - a security policy expert that served in Iraq as an analyst and adviser to the Multinational Force Iraq and the U.S. military - writes, “From an intelligence perspective this [inspectors continuous monitoring of Iran’s nuclear supply chain] is an unparalleled opportunity to collect, analyze and develop targeting databases on this crucial element of Iran’s ability to reconstitute its nuclear program. A bombing campaign that effectively destroyed the centrifuge manufacturing base would cripple Iran’s ability to reconstitute for years, perhaps even a decade or more. This opportunity alone should make Iran hawks gleeful.”

The full article is required reading - for proponents and detractors of the deal alike.

“If you really want to bomb Iran, take the deal”

[/quote]

That all sounds wonderful, but hinges on governmental agencies actually doing their job. That’s a leap in and of itself.

Oh and lets just throw a billion dollars a year at it…

Like I said, we’ll see.

228

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

“If we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them, you are going to have to obey our rules and sanctions anyway, that is a recipe, very quickly … for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world,”

WHAT?

  1. How does he make that connection?

  2. If that is true, what did they promise or negotiate in this deal that would make it so?

  3. Is he saying this because its going to happen anyway, and now he can say “told you so.”

Can we please find out what is in this deal for Christ sake? Not some second hand glossed over bullshit, we deserve to see whats at stake.[/quote]

Oh, here we go, the whole tamale:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-text.html

What we do not have, nor does congress is the IEAE strategy for carrying out the inspections. I most certainly do not congress to act on this deal, pro or con, until at least they have that information. It’s pretty crucial, since we are trusting them completely with the inspections.[/quote]

How Will Iran Inspections Work?

http://www.cfr.org/nonproliferation-arms-control-and-disarmament/iran-nuclear-inspections-work/p36850[/quote]

Also, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, Congress effectively made itself powerless to stop the deal. [/quote]

No they are not powerless to stop it and even if they were, it’s not congresses fault. The careful wording of the agreement to avoid any such item that would make it fall under a treaty provision would be the administration’s fault for circumventing the traditional checks and balances that would/ should be in place. And of course obama will use his veto power to shelve any bills congress passes with respect to the agreement.
This, of course is also not a new tactic by the obama administration as they use the power of executive order to circumvent congress pretty much at will. But it is important, that even if obama poo poo’s congress’s decision that the decent be a part of the public record so, as to indicate to obama’s abuse of power and so it can be dealt with at a later date.
Further, nobody should want this to pass or fail without congressional oversight. If congress can be bypassed at will on matters of such importance, we are dancing dangerously close to what a dictatorship normally looks like. I cannot imagine any American wanting that, even if the current dictator implements things you like, the next one may not.[/quote]

Continuing to say “nuh-uh!” in the face of a legal argument is hardly a cogent response. Just because you want it to be true doesn’t make it the case. I’ve supported my position with no less than six credible legal sources, while you are content with keeping your head buried in the sand. Your vague appeal to “checks and balances” is off base, as Congress conferred the authority to the executive branch and the Supreme Court has long upheld these actions to be constitutional.

The JCOPA is not a treaty under American or international law, but what’s known as an international political agreement. The charge that the JCPOA is unconstitutional is inaccurate, as the administration does not claim that the Iran Deal itself is binding under international law, and such non-binding deals needn’t receive Senate consent. By the way, the President ratifies and proclaims treaties, not the Senate. And no, that isn’t pedantic.

Even if the Iran Deal itself were an international obligation, it is not true that “significant international obligations have always been established through treaties, which require Senate consent by a two-thirds majority.” See, e.g., SALT I, NAFTA, most other free trade agreements, the Algiers Accords, and most Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions. These are examples of executive agreements. In addition to “treaties”, the president has the power to make other international agreements: (1) on the basis of congressional authorization; (2) on the basis of his own foreign relations power; or (3) on the basis of authority contained in an earlier treaty made pursuant to Article II. These agreements are also considered to be federal law, and enjoy legal parity with a “treaty” that has been ratified. The administration isn’t even claiming the JCPOA is an executive agreement.

The administration did use the JCPOA as a basis for a UN Security Council Resolution that is in part binding under international law. But as John Bellinger explained, the Iran Resolution does not appear to obligate the United States under international law to lift domestic US sanctions, and thus does not tie Congress’s hands as a matter of international law. Congress has expressly approved this practice, which has been employed since the 1940s. (See especially 22 USC 287 and 22 USC 287a.)

Some complain about the president’s ability to vote in favor of any UN Security Council Resolution that would impose binding obligations on the United States, included related to sanctions, without Senate consent. This is a power long exercised by the President under Article II and pursuant to authority conferred by Congress. See the following:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/...de/text/22/287c

https://www.law.cornell.edu/...de/text/22/287a

https://www.law.cornell.edu/...ode/text/22/287

As for the Iran Review Act, all it did was delay the President’s ability to waive domestic sanctions. Congress is effectively powerless to stop the Iran deal. The main cause of Congress’s lack of leverage on the Iran deal is the pre-existing congressional sanctions regime that gave the president discretion to waive or lift the sanctions under certain circumstances. If Congress had not delegated to the president authority to lift the sanctions, the president could not lift them now, either directly or via an international agreement. See the following:

https://fas.org/...east/R43311.pdf

229

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Textbook case of what Bismark is talking about when he cautions against listening to people who don’t know anything about foreign affairs:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m still wondering what we got out of this deal?[/quote]

Nothing. Not a damn thing. We got a promise that they will not try to make a bomb for 15 years.[/quote]

No. As I wrote a page ago (it has been slightly altered):

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
150 inspectors in the country, IAEA technical monitors and international scientists at Fordow, 98 percent reduction in uranium-stockpile size and a 3.67 percent cap on enrichment, late-generation centrifuges surrendered, Arak dispossessed of plutonium-production capacity, 25 years of IAEA monitoring of nuclear facilities. The 24 days entail some risk, particularly if the Iranians find a way to stall further, but, as Moniz said, this is not a matter of dishwashing (and the extant nuclear facilities themselves will not be subject to any delay: they will be monitored continuously). Nuclear weapons production is heavy industry, and an interested American security apparatus is a hell of a thing to try to hide from. Again, though, it is absolutely inarguable that the agreement effectively destroys Iran’s capacity to develop a nuclear weapon for up to a quarter of a century (and, indeed, beyond: they aren’t going to get back much of what’s taken from them). There is no question about this. Perhaps we do go to war in 25, 40, 50 years; perhaps we don’t. Perhaps the Iranian regime and, more importantly, Iranian people get pushed beyond the tipping point and come to loudly say that American good will is preferable to the teeth of American military might. Perhaps. This is the nature of the game. If you want a sure thing, bet against the New York Jets.)[/quote]

^ A little bit more than “a promise” and/or “nothing.” [/quote]

We’ll see. The above will depend on transparency and enforcement. 150 inspectors in country is about 4,200 square miles per inspector, that’s about triple the size of Rhode Island. That’s a lot of ground to cover per person…

[/quote]

The IAEA has improved technologies that supplement inspections with real-time data. Electronic and fiber optic seals, laser sensors, smart cameras and encrypted networks allow inspectors to closely monitor Iran�??�?�¢??s nuclear infrastructure, in real time, from their command post in Vienna. This mitigates concerns regarding limited manpower and the 24 day inspection waiting period.

There also exists a virtuous circle between the IAEA and Western intelligence. If the US intelligence community, with its multiple agencies - utilizing spies, eavesdropping on communications, breaking coded messages - reveals problems, it can bring its intelligence on the matter to the IAEA. Obama can ease the concerns of Congress by increasing the funding for intelligence collection, analysis and target development on the Iranian nuclear program by as much as $ 1 billion a year, a small price to pay for a nuclear free Iran.

Inspections also bolster the intelligence community’s understanding of the Iranian nuclear program, greatly benefiting collection efforts and the accuracy of targeting packages. As Austin Long - a security policy expert that served in Iraq as an analyst and adviser to the Multinational Force Iraq and the U.S. military - writes, “From an intelligence perspective this [inspectors continuous monitoring of Iran’s nuclear supply chain] is an unparalleled opportunity to collect, analyze and develop targeting databases on this crucial element of Iran’s ability to reconstitute its nuclear program. A bombing campaign that effectively destroyed the centrifuge manufacturing base would cripple Iran’s ability to reconstitute for years, perhaps even a decade or more. This opportunity alone should make Iran hawks gleeful.”

The full article is required reading - for proponents and detractors of the deal alike.

“If you really want to bomb Iran, take the deal”

[/quote]

That all sounds wonderful, but hinges on governmental agencies actually doing their job. That’s a leap in and of itself.

Oh and lets just throw a billion dollars a year at it…

Like I said, we’ll see. [/quote]

I’d appreciate your thoughts on the article.

The US intelligence community did discover the undeclared nuclear facilities at Natanz and Fordow, so it must be doing something right. The robust inspections and monitoring regime will only strengthen collection, analysis, and targeting efforts.

We’d be spending far more than $ 1 billion a year for war or containment, for what it’s worth.

230

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Textbook case of what Bismark is talking about when he cautions against listening to people who don’t know anything about foreign affairs:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m still wondering what we got out of this deal?[/quote]

Nothing. Not a damn thing. We got a promise that they will not try to make a bomb for 15 years.[/quote]

No. As I wrote a page ago (it has been slightly altered):

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
150 inspectors in the country, IAEA technical monitors and international scientists at Fordow, 98 percent reduction in uranium-stockpile size and a 3.67 percent cap on enrichment, late-generation centrifuges surrendered, Arak dispossessed of plutonium-production capacity, 25 years of IAEA monitoring of nuclear facilities. The 24 days entail some risk, particularly if the Iranians find a way to stall further, but, as Moniz said, this is not a matter of dishwashing (and the extant nuclear facilities themselves will not be subject to any delay: they will be monitored continuously). Nuclear weapons production is heavy industry, and an interested American security apparatus is a hell of a thing to try to hide from. Again, though, it is absolutely inarguable that the agreement effectively destroys Iran’s capacity to develop a nuclear weapon for up to a quarter of a century (and, indeed, beyond: they aren’t going to get back much of what’s taken from them). There is no question about this. Perhaps we do go to war in 25, 40, 50 years; perhaps we don’t. Perhaps the Iranian regime and, more importantly, Iranian people get pushed beyond the tipping point and come to loudly say that American good will is preferable to the teeth of American military might. Perhaps. This is the nature of the game. If you want a sure thing, bet against the New York Jets.)[/quote]

^ A little bit more than “a promise” and/or “nothing.” [/quote]

We’ll see. The above will depend on transparency and enforcement. 150 inspectors in country is about 4,200 square miles per inspector, that’s about triple the size of Rhode Island. That’s a lot of ground to cover per person…

[/quote]

The IAEA has improved technologies that supplement inspections with real-time data. Electronic and fiber optic seals, laser sensors, smart cameras and encrypted networks allow inspectors to closely monitor Iran�??�??�?�¢??s nuclear infrastructure, in real time, from their command post in Vienna. This mitigates concerns regarding limited manpower and the 24 day inspection waiting period.

There also exists a virtuous circle between the IAEA and Western intelligence. If the US intelligence community, with its multiple agencies - utilizing spies, eavesdropping on communications, breaking coded messages - reveals problems, it can bring its intelligence on the matter to the IAEA. Obama can ease the concerns of Congress by increasing the funding for intelligence collection, analysis and target development on the Iranian nuclear program by as much as $ 1 billion a year, a small price to pay for a nuclear free Iran.

Inspections also bolster the intelligence community’s understanding of the Iranian nuclear program, greatly benefiting collection efforts and the accuracy of targeting packages. As Austin Long - a security policy expert that served in Iraq as an analyst and adviser to the Multinational Force Iraq and the U.S. military - writes, “From an intelligence perspective this [inspectors continuous monitoring of Iran’s nuclear supply chain] is an unparalleled opportunity to collect, analyze and develop targeting databases on this crucial element of Iran’s ability to reconstitute its nuclear program. A bombing campaign that effectively destroyed the centrifuge manufacturing base would cripple Iran’s ability to reconstitute for years, perhaps even a decade or more. This opportunity alone should make Iran hawks gleeful.”

The full article is required reading - for proponents and detractors of the deal alike.

“If you really want to bomb Iran, take the deal”

[/quote]

That all sounds wonderful, but hinges on governmental agencies actually doing their job. That’s a leap in and of itself.

Oh and lets just throw a billion dollars a year at it…

Like I said, we’ll see. [/quote]

I’d appreciate your thoughts on the article. [/quote]

I think the author is overly optimistic about how effective the deal is. For example, “Iran will only be allowed to procure nuclear components through a transparent and dedicated procurement channel.”

Right…

I’d say it also supports my boots on the ground in ten years statement because I seriously doubt Iran will follow the agreement.

They’ll skirt the line a few times and then step right over it. We’ll talk tough for a while and then finally do something.

[quote]
The US intelligence community did discover the undeclared nuclear facilities at Natanz and Fordow, so it must be doing something right. [/quote]

Fantastic.

[quote]
The robust inspections and monitoring regime will only strengthen collection, analysis, and targeting efforts. [/quote]

You keep saying that. We’ll see.

[quote]
We’d be spending far more than $ 1 billion a year for war or containment, for what it’s worth.[/quote]

That doesn’t mean throwing a billion dollars at the problem is the right thing to do.

231

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:
Apparently Bill wasn’t qualified to comment on that treaty.[/quote]

It’s disingenuous to compare the nuclear programs of the two states. We have to keep in mind that the DPRK withdrew from the NPT on January 11, 2003. IAEA Inspectors and their equipment were removed from the country. It wasn’t until February 27, 2003 that US officials confirmed that North Korea had restarted the five-megawatt nuclear reactor that had been frozen by the Agreed Framework, and not until October 9, 2006 that North Korea conducted its first underground nuclear test near the village of P’unggye. Is the Bush administration somehow at fault for a tinpot despot’s imprudent recalcitrance?
[/quote]

It’s disingenuous to try to obfuscate the situation by saying I compared the two programs.

All the picture points out that we have been promised these things before, by no less then the POTUS, and the promises were hollow.

My comment was that Bill Clinton was apparently not “qualified” since history proved he was wrong with his statements.

232

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
Thanks for the links.

[/quote]

One of the things that jumped out at me is how many times the term “in good faith” was used in the document. Also, the many provisions that allows Iran to simply walk away from the deal . . . In 15 years, they will legally, be able to pursue nuclear weapons. [/quote]

“In good faith” is a standard diplomatic platitude. The phrase is used prolifically in international law.

Virtually every international agreement has withdraw provisions. States would be hesitant to commit themselves perpetually to binding obligations whilst they reside in an anarchical international system. This is why many international agreements also have sunset clauses. Why would this one be any different?
[/quote]
It’s an inappropriate platitude in this case, because ‘in good faith’ is a statement of trust, and our partner in this case is not trustworthy. If they were, we simply could have proceeded ‘in good faith’ that they had no plans to make a bomb in the first place.

[quote]
Legally be able to pursue nuclear arms? What are you basing that statement on? Iran is party to the NPT, which forbids non-nuclear weapon states from pursuing atomic arms. The accession to the IAEA’s Additional Protocol will have to be permanent at the end of the JCPOA or they will face a renewed sanctions regime.[/quote]

I stand corrected. You are correct. They would not be able to persue them legally. They would be able to pursue them with minimal resistance.

233

[quote]Bismark wrote:
A better deal is an illusion. If the United States rejects the JCPOA, its policy vis-a-vis Iran will be limited to a daunting dilemma: war or containment. I prefer an imperfect deal (an ideal deal is an irresponsible fantasy) to either surgical strikes against Iran’s nuclear program or containment, though the latter is preferable to the former.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/iran-deal-rejection-121257.html#.Vc4V8PlViko[/quote]

Then ‘no deal’ would be the better option. An imperfect deal is a better option in this case.

234

[quote]2busy wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]2busy wrote:
Apparently Bill wasn’t qualified to comment on that treaty.[/quote]

It’s disingenuous to compare the nuclear programs of the two states. We have to keep in mind that the DPRK withdrew from the NPT on January 11, 2003. IAEA Inspectors and their equipment were removed from the country. It wasn’t until February 27, 2003 that US officials confirmed that North Korea had restarted the five-megawatt nuclear reactor that had been frozen by the Agreed Framework, and not until October 9, 2006 that North Korea conducted its first underground nuclear test near the village of P’unggye. Is the Bush administration somehow at fault for a tinpot despot’s imprudent recalcitrance?
[/quote]

It’s disingenuous to try to obfuscate the situation by saying I compared the two programs.

All the picture points out that we have been promised these things before, by no less then the POTUS, and the promises were hollow.

My comment was that Bill Clinton was apparently not “qualified” since history proved he was wrong with his statements.

[/quote]

Given the picture and the thread it was posted in, it wasn’t unreasonable for me to come to that conclusion.

The Agreed Framework and the JCPOA are two different animals, as are the DPRK and Iran. The JCPOA is the most intrusive, demanding and comprehensive set of inspections, verification protocols and snapback measures ever negotiated. Compare the detailed 159-page document with the United States’ 1994 accord with North Korea, which was a vaguely worded four-page document with few monitoring and enforcement provisions.

Even the most seasoned analyst don’t bat 100%. The DPRK was willing to eat grass to get the bomb. Short of war, the US and its allies were not going to prevent the regime from achieving that goal. The Bush administration chose coercive diplomacy and then containment after the DPRK became a nuclear weapons state. I can’t fault Bush 43 for that. If Iran violate the deal, it will be legally and politically viable to reconstitute the broad international sanctions regime, conduct a surgical air campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities, or contain Iran, even a nuclear one. As it augments collection, analysis, and targeting efforts, the deal also strengthens the credibility and efficacy of future military action. Even Iran hawks should be for a deal.

235

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
A better deal is an illusion. If the United States rejects the JCPOA, its policy vis-a-vis Iran will be limited to a daunting dilemma: war or containment. I prefer an imperfect deal (an ideal deal is an irresponsible fantasy) to either surgical strikes against Iran’s nuclear program or containment, though the latter is preferable to the former.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/iran-deal-rejection-121257.html#.Vc4V8PlViko[/quote]

Then ‘no deal’ would be the better option. An imperfect deal is a better option in this case. [/quote]

Your first and second sentences are logically incompatible. Can you be so kind as to clarify?

236

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:

“If we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them, you are going to have to obey our rules and sanctions anyway, that is a recipe, very quickly … for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world,”

WHAT?

  1. How does he make that connection?

  2. If that is true, what did they promise or negotiate in this deal that would make it so?

  3. Is he saying this because its going to happen anyway, and now he can say “told you so.”

Can we please find out what is in this deal for Christ sake? Not some second hand glossed over bullshit, we deserve to see whats at stake.[/quote]

Oh, here we go, the whole tamale:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2165388-iran-deal-text.html

What we do not have, nor does congress is the IEAE strategy for carrying out the inspections. I most certainly do not congress to act on this deal, pro or con, until at least they have that information. It’s pretty crucial, since we are trusting them completely with the inspections.[/quote]

How Will Iran Inspections Work?

http://www.cfr.org/nonproliferation-arms-control-and-disarmament/iran-nuclear-inspections-work/p36850[/quote]

Also, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, Congress effectively made itself powerless to stop the deal. [/quote]

No they are not powerless to stop it and even if they were, it’s not congresses fault. The careful wording of the agreement to avoid any such item that would make it fall under a treaty provision would be the administration’s fault for circumventing the traditional checks and balances that would/ should be in place. And of course obama will use his veto power to shelve any bills congress passes with respect to the agreement.
This, of course is also not a new tactic by the obama administration as they use the power of executive order to circumvent congress pretty much at will. But it is important, that even if obama poo poo’s congress’s decision that the decent be a part of the public record so, as to indicate to obama’s abuse of power and so it can be dealt with at a later date.
Further, nobody should want this to pass or fail without congressional oversight. If congress can be bypassed at will on matters of such importance, we are dancing dangerously close to what a dictatorship normally looks like. I cannot imagine any American wanting that, even if the current dictator implements things you like, the next one may not.[/quote]

Continuing to say “nuh-uh!” in the face of a legal argument is hardly a cogent response. Just because you want it to be true doesn’t make it the case. I’ve supported my position with no less than six credible legal sources, while you are content with keeping your head buried in the sand. Your vague appeal to “checks and balances” is off base, as Congress conferred the authority to the executive branch and the Supreme Court has long upheld these actions to be constitutional.

The JCOPA is not a treaty under American or international law, but what’s known as an international political agreement. The charge that the JCPOA is unconstitutional is inaccurate, as the administration does not claim that the Iran Deal itself is binding under international law, and such non-binding deals needn’t receive Senate consent. By the way, the President ratifies and proclaims treaties, not the Senate. And no, that isn’t pedantic.

Even if the Iran Deal itself were an international obligation, it is not true that “significant international obligations have always been established through treaties, which require Senate consent by a two-thirds majority.” See, e.g., SALT I, NAFTA, most other free trade agreements, the Algiers Accords, and most Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions. These are examples of executive agreements. In addition to “treaties”, the president has the power to make other international agreements: (1) on the basis of congressional authorization; (2) on the basis of his own foreign relations power; or (3) on the basis of authority contained in an earlier treaty made pursuant to Article II. These agreements are also considered to be federal law, and enjoy legal parity with a “treaty” that has been ratified. The administration isn’t even claiming the JCPOA is an executive agreement.

The administration did use the JCPOA as a basis for a UN Security Council Resolution that is in part binding under international law. But as John Bellinger explained, the Iran Resolution does not appear to obligate the United States under international law to lift domestic US sanctions, and thus does not tie Congress’s hands as a matter of international law. Congress has expressly approved this practice, which has been employed since the 1940s. (See especially 22 USC 287 and 22 USC 287a.)

Some complain about the president’s ability to vote in favor of any UN Security Council Resolution that would impose binding obligations on the United States, included related to sanctions, without Senate consent. This is a power long exercised by the President under Article II and pursuant to authority conferred by Congress. See the following:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/...de/text/22/287c

https://www.law.cornell.edu/...de/text/22/287a

https://www.law.cornell.edu/...ode/text/22/287

As for the Iran Review Act, all it did was delay the President’s ability to waive domestic sanctions. Congress is effectively powerless to stop the Iran deal. The main cause of Congress’s lack of leverage on the Iran deal is the pre-existing congressional sanctions regime that gave the president discretion to waive or lift the sanctions under certain circumstances. If Congress had not delegated to the president authority to lift the sanctions, the president could not lift them now, either directly or via an international agreement. See the following:

https://fas.org/...east/R43311.pdf
[/quote]

Is this a new tactic? Arguing vociferously against things I did not say? I never said it was illegal or unconstitutional. Quite the opposite actually. Your proficiency in 10 dollar words must be waning. I made no allusion even that it was illegal or unconstitutional. I was speaking to the semantic maneuverability that allowed him to proceed with this and other measures that allow him to operate without accountability that most leaders would have allowed.
Using the law to hide behind it, very different
from saying it was illegal. Show me the line where I said ‘it is unconstitutional’ or ‘illegal’. Go ahead and use your ‘copy and paste’ abilities and show me where I said that.
If you are going to write a wall of words about something I said, make sure I said I actually said it.

237

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
A better deal is an illusion. If the United States rejects the JCPOA, its policy vis-a-vis Iran will be limited to a daunting dilemma: war or containment. I prefer an imperfect deal (an ideal deal is an irresponsible fantasy) to either surgical strikes against Iran’s nuclear program or containment, though the latter is preferable to the former.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/iran-deal-rejection-121257.html#.Vc4V8PlViko[/quote]

Then ‘no deal’ would be the better option. An imperfect deal is a better option in this case. [/quote]

Your first and second sentences are logically incompatible. Can you be so kind as to clarify? [/quote]

EDIT:
Then ‘no deal’ would be the better option. An imperfect deal is a worse option in this case.

238

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Textbook case of what Bismark is talking about when he cautions against listening to people who don’t know anything about foreign affairs:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m still wondering what we got out of this deal?[/quote]

Nothing. Not a damn thing. We got a promise that they will not try to make a bomb for 15 years.[/quote]

No. As I wrote a page ago (it has been slightly altered):

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
150 inspectors in the country, IAEA technical monitors and international scientists at Fordow, 98 percent reduction in uranium-stockpile size and a 3.67 percent cap on enrichment, late-generation centrifuges surrendered, Arak dispossessed of plutonium-production capacity, 25 years of IAEA monitoring of nuclear facilities. The 24 days entail some risk, particularly if the Iranians find a way to stall further, but, as Moniz said, this is not a matter of dishwashing (and the extant nuclear facilities themselves will not be subject to any delay: they will be monitored continuously). Nuclear weapons production is heavy industry, and an interested American security apparatus is a hell of a thing to try to hide from. Again, though, it is absolutely inarguable that the agreement effectively destroys Iran’s capacity to develop a nuclear weapon for up to a quarter of a century (and, indeed, beyond: they aren’t going to get back much of what’s taken from them). There is no question about this. Perhaps we do go to war in 25, 40, 50 years; perhaps we don’t. Perhaps the Iranian regime and, more importantly, Iranian people get pushed beyond the tipping point and come to loudly say that American good will is preferable to the teeth of American military might. Perhaps. This is the nature of the game. If you want a sure thing, bet against the New York Jets.)[/quote]

^ A little bit more than “a promise” and/or “nothing.” [/quote]

We’ll see. The above will depend on transparency and enforcement. 150 inspectors in country is about 4,200 square miles per inspector, that’s about triple the size of Rhode Island. That’s a lot of ground to cover per person…

[/quote]

The IAEA has improved technologies that supplement inspections with real-time data. Electronic and fiber optic seals, laser sensors, smart cameras and encrypted networks allow inspectors to closely monitor Iran�?�¢??s nuclear infrastructure, in real time, from their command post in Vienna. This mitigates concerns regarding limited manpower and the 24 day inspection waiting period.

There also exists a virtuous circle between the IAEA and Western intelligence. If the US intelligence community, with its multiple agencies - utilizing spies, eavesdropping on communications, breaking coded messages - reveals problems, it can bring its intelligence on the matter to the IAEA. Obama can ease the concerns of Congress by increasing the funding for intelligence collection, analysis and target development on the Iranian nuclear program by as much as $ 1 billion a year, a small price to pay for a nuclear free Iran.

Inspections also bolster the intelligence community’s understanding of the Iranian nuclear program, greatly benefiting collection efforts and the accuracy of targeting packages. As Austin Long - a security policy expert that served in Iraq as an analyst and adviser to the Multinational Force Iraq and the U.S. military - writes, “From an intelligence perspective this [inspectors continuous monitoring of Iran’s nuclear supply chain] is an unparalleled opportunity to collect, analyze and develop targeting databases on this crucial element of Iran’s ability to reconstitute its nuclear program. A bombing campaign that effectively destroyed the centrifuge manufacturing base would cripple Iran’s ability to reconstitute for years, perhaps even a decade or more. This opportunity alone should make Iran hawks gleeful.”

The full article is required reading - for proponents and detractors of the deal alike.

“If you really want to bomb Iran, take the deal”

[/quote]

Oh I feel better about it now. The IAEA has better technology, so it’s all good. Iran is going to stop sponsoring terrorism, release our prisoners, allow gay marriage, and revoke sharia law because the IAEA has better technology. It’s all good now.

239

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
A better deal is an illusion. If the United States rejects the JCPOA, its policy vis-a-vis Iran will be limited to a daunting dilemma: war or containment. I prefer an imperfect deal (an ideal deal is an irresponsible fantasy) to either surgical strikes against Iran’s nuclear program or containment, though the latter is preferable to the former.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/iran-deal-rejection-121257.html#.Vc4V8PlViko[/quote]

Then ‘no deal’ would be the better option. An imperfect deal is a better option in this case. [/quote]

Your first and second sentences are logically incompatible. Can you be so kind as to clarify? [/quote]

EDIT:
Then ‘no deal’ would be the better option. An imperfect deal is a worse option in this case.[/quote]

How so? Did you follow the author’s reasoning?

240

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Textbook case of what Bismark is talking about when he cautions against listening to people who don’t know anything about foreign affairs:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m still wondering what we got out of this deal?[/quote]

Nothing. Not a damn thing. We got a promise that they will not try to make a bomb for 15 years.[/quote]

No. As I wrote a page ago (it has been slightly altered):

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
150 inspectors in the country, IAEA technical monitors and international scientists at Fordow, 98 percent reduction in uranium-stockpile size and a 3.67 percent cap on enrichment, late-generation centrifuges surrendered, Arak dispossessed of plutonium-production capacity, 25 years of IAEA monitoring of nuclear facilities. The 24 days entail some risk, particularly if the Iranians find a way to stall further, but, as Moniz said, this is not a matter of dishwashing (and the extant nuclear facilities themselves will not be subject to any delay: they will be monitored continuously). Nuclear weapons production is heavy industry, and an interested American security apparatus is a hell of a thing to try to hide from. Again, though, it is absolutely inarguable that the agreement effectively destroys Iran’s capacity to develop a nuclear weapon for up to a quarter of a century (and, indeed, beyond: they aren’t going to get back much of what’s taken from them). There is no question about this. Perhaps we do go to war in 25, 40, 50 years; perhaps we don’t. Perhaps the Iranian regime and, more importantly, Iranian people get pushed beyond the tipping point and come to loudly say that American good will is preferable to the teeth of American military might. Perhaps. This is the nature of the game. If you want a sure thing, bet against the New York Jets.)[/quote]

^ A little bit more than “a promise” and/or “nothing.” [/quote]

We’ll see. The above will depend on transparency and enforcement. 150 inspectors in country is about 4,200 square miles per inspector, that’s about triple the size of Rhode Island. That’s a lot of ground to cover per person…

[/quote]

The IAEA has improved technologies that supplement inspections with real-time data. Electronic and fiber optic seals, laser sensors, smart cameras and encrypted networks allow inspectors to closely monitor Iran�??�?�¢??s nuclear infrastructure, in real time, from their command post in Vienna. This mitigates concerns regarding limited manpower and the 24 day inspection waiting period.

There also exists a virtuous circle between the IAEA and Western intelligence. If the US intelligence community, with its multiple agencies - utilizing spies, eavesdropping on communications, breaking coded messages - reveals problems, it can bring its intelligence on the matter to the IAEA. Obama can ease the concerns of Congress by increasing the funding for intelligence collection, analysis and target development on the Iranian nuclear program by as much as $ 1 billion a year, a small price to pay for a nuclear free Iran.

Inspections also bolster the intelligence community’s understanding of the Iranian nuclear program, greatly benefiting collection efforts and the accuracy of targeting packages. As Austin Long - a security policy expert that served in Iraq as an analyst and adviser to the Multinational Force Iraq and the U.S. military - writes, “From an intelligence perspective this [inspectors continuous monitoring of Iran’s nuclear supply chain] is an unparalleled opportunity to collect, analyze and develop targeting databases on this crucial element of Iran’s ability to reconstitute its nuclear program. A bombing campaign that effectively destroyed the centrifuge manufacturing base would cripple Iran’s ability to reconstitute for years, perhaps even a decade or more. This opportunity alone should make Iran hawks gleeful.”

The full article is required reading - for proponents and detractors of the deal alike.

“If you really want to bomb Iran, take the deal”

[/quote]

Oh I feel better about it now. The IAEA has better technology, so it’s all good. Iran is going to stop sponsoring terrorism, release our prisoners, allow gay marriage, and revoke sharia law because the IAEA has better technology. It’s all good now.[/quote]

I never argued the straw man above. Care to address the rest of my post, and specifically the virtuous circle of inspectors and Western intelligence? The article I linked puts forth a compelling argument why even Iran hawks should be for a deal.