[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]loppar wrote:
while the average middle-class Iranian is more often than not genuinely upset that the US does not want them as allies.
[/quote]
We don’t want THEM as allies? They were our allies…they threw US out, remember? I don’t recall anyone in America burning an Iranian flag while chanting Death to Iran, do you?
[/quote]
I’m old enough to remember when they played “Bomb, Bomb Iran” (to the tune of “Barbara Ann”) on the radio. Does that count?
[quote]loppar wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I don’t think our only options on the table were to either make a shitty deal with Iran that not only helps their economy but gives a big boost to their war machine, or go to war. There were other options like crippling their economy and let the Mossad take care of their nuclear ambitions.
I’ve gotten through about half of the actual text. It’s actually not been enlightening nor comforting so far. So far it’s as bad as it seems. [/quote]
If you want to be unsettled, remember that Pakistan has the bomb and hundred or so million of piss-poor people increasingly brainwashed by propaganda emanating from Saudi mosques who regularly burn atheists and christians, perform honor killings and stoning for minor infractions of their concept of “morality” and throw acid in the faces of teenage girls who want to educate themselves.
And a corrupt quasi-democracy that has to pander to the above mentioned hundred million. Now that’s unsettling.[/quote]
Ah yes. Let us ally ourselves with these people. Makes so much more sense than making friends with the Iranians.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]loppar wrote:
while the average middle-class Iranian is more often than not genuinely upset that the US does not want them as allies.
[/quote]
We don’t want THEM as allies? They were our allies…they threw US out, remember? I don’t recall anyone in America burning an Iranian flag while chanting Death to Iran, do you?
[/quote]
I’m old enough to remember when they played “Bomb, Bomb Iran” (to the tune of “Barbara Ann”) on the radio. Does that count?[/quote]
True, and I was searching for a case when American Indians picketed the Iranian Embassy in Washington DC (before it closed) for retaliation for the Hostage Crisis. Couldn’t find it. Do you remember that also?
“Bomb Iran” played on the radio for a couple of months. After the Iranian Hostage crisis the people in the US never carried on like the Iranians burning flags and having rallies for the next 36 years!
Why we didn’t support them more in 2009 is beyond me. Do you think if we had and the current Iranian government collapsed we would be their ally, or would the situation be like the one currently in Libya?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Why we didn’t support them more in 2009 is beyond me. Do you think if we had and the current Iranian government collapsed we would be their ally, or would the situation be like the one currently in Libya?[/quote]
Unfortunately, the Green revolution couldn’t have been helped. Iranians are fiercely proud of their rich cultural, scientific and national heritage which served (and serves) as a sort of counterweight to the Arab version of islam. The primary concern is protecting “national pride” so they tend to shun foreign meddling. That’s why they had to perform such verbal and mental gymnastics to explain the backing down on the nuclear issue.
As the protesters were primarily educated middle/upper class, any kind of support could have been used to further brand the protesters as “foreign agents” and “american spies”. Sadly, like in many other instances (Ghezi Park protests in Turkey), police from “reliable” (conservative) poor provincial villages were bussed into Tehran to deal with the despised “rich kids” protesting, resulting in mass torture and murder.
Libya, like Iraq was and is a mass of warring tribes that was held together by the iron hand of Qaddafi. Iranians are much more ethnically homogenous so there’s no basis for such internal strife along ethnic/tribal/religious lines, expect to some small degree in the NW and SE where there are Kurd and Baluchi minorities. Things in Iran happen on a national level.
Even pro-West Iranians are still bitter about US support of the shah and the 1953 CIA engineered coup that placed him in power. Obama kind of apologized for the latter, which was very well received.
Remember, the overthrow of the shah began as a legitimate airing of grievances against the hugely corrupt government, which was subsequently hijacked by Khomeini and his extremists.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]loppar wrote:
while the average middle-class Iranian is more often than not genuinely upset that the US does not want them as allies.
[/quote]
We don’t want THEM as allies? They were our allies…they threw US out, remember? I don’t recall anyone in America burning an Iranian flag while chanting Death to Iran, do you?
[/quote]
I’m old enough to remember when they played “Bomb, Bomb Iran” (to the tune of “Barbara Ann”) on the radio. Does that count?[/quote]
I remember that. We’re both old.
At that time, we were a little pissed about the whole hostage thing.
[quote]pat wrote:
Welp, they did it. We have a 10-15 year deal. In the larger scheme of things, 10 years isn’t really that long, nor is 15. What then? . . . In 15 years, then what? What’s the plan to keep Iran in check? [/quote]
Under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCOPA), the United States would effectively be able to detect the diversion of Iranian nuclear equipment or fissile material in near real time for at least 25 years. After that, Iran will still be obligated by its future ratification of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Additional Protocol, and critically, modified code 3.1.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This deal is entirely based on a premise that we trust Iran and believe them at their word. If this premise were true, we would have no need for a deal. We would let them do whatever they wanted.
[/quote]
The JCOPA is predicated on verification, not trust. How else can one explain an inspections regime that is much more intrusive than has been imposed on any country other than Iraq after the Gulf War?
[quote]OldOgre wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Welp, they did it. We have a 10-15 year deal. In the larger scheme of things, 10 years isn’t really that long, nor is 15. What then?
One thing I have an issue is, is the ‘snapping’ of the sanctions back into place. On paper it sounds good, but how viable is it? If a western country has an economic deal with Iran, sanctions will hurt both. Will the almighty dollar trump the ethics of sanctions? It’s possible.
In 15 years, then what? What’s the plan to keep Iran in check? [/quote]
Don’t worry. I estimate that Israel will take care of this problem if Iran gets much closer to obtaining nuclear military capabilities. [/quote]
What do you base your assessment on? Israel does not have a good military option against Iran’s nuclear program for both military-technical and political reasons. Nor is covert action a panacea. Ultimately, only a series of preventative Israeli nuclear strikes would be capable of setting Iran’s nuclear program back to square one. Nuclear war to prevent nuclear proliferation is paradoxical, to say the least.
[quote]pat wrote:
. . . The thing is that nuclear weapons aren’t particularly useful anymore. It’s a case of mutually assured destruction. Sure they can nuke Israel, but Israel will nuke them out of existence . . . [/quote]
On the contrary. Nuclear deterrence trumps conventional deterrence, which would be far more difficult for Iran to establish vis-a-vis the United States. As Mohsen M. Milani writes in his article “Tehran’s Take - Understanding Iran’s U.S. Policy”, “Tehran’s top priority is the survival of the Islamic Republic as it exists now. Tehran views the United States as an existential threat and to counter it has devised a strategy that rests on both deterrence and competition in the Middle East.” A key aspect of Iran’s deterrence strategy is the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.
Mutually assured destruction (MAD) is an implementable doctrine in a conflict dyad when the nuclear weapon states in question are capable of pursuing massive retaliation and can sustain an initial nuclear strike. According to a 1999 declassified US Defense Intelligence Agency report, the intelligence community estimated that Israel possessed between 60-80 nuclear warheads. It isn’t unreasonable to assume that number is higher now. That significant quantity gives Israel the ability to massively retaliate. The Israeli Navy has procured three German made dolphin class submarines, which can deploy nuclear capable Popeye Turbo cruise missiles. This gives Israel a secure second strike capability. By contrast, a nuclear Iran’s immature arsenal would confer neither of the requirements of MAD.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
. . . Obama - so desperate to get Congress on board - very publicly explained that it was this deal or a far worse alternative. [/quote]
The alternatives to the United States’ coercive diplomacy are war or containment, a daunting dilemma to say the least. Critics of the deal (the vast majority of whom hadn’t even bothered to read the text of the JCOPA before voicing their vehement opposition to it) have been unable to articulate cogent policy alternatives. The challenge in Iran policy (as is so often the case) lies not in picking an ideal course but in choosing among lesser evils. Diplomacy is preferable over containment, and containment over war.
As Robert Jervis writes, “The deal with Iran falls far short of what the United States and its European allies would like. Although the question of whether the West could have gotten a better deal is interesting, much more important is the question of whether the deal was better than the breakdown of the negotiations. It was, and by quite a large margin.” According to the senior RAND analyst Dalia Dassa Kaye, failure to reach a deal would likely have produced one or more of the following: an expanded Iranian nuclear program; an erosion of broad international sanctions without any benefit to regional or global security; heightened potential for military conflict; and the loss of opportunities to work on major areas of common concern to Iran and the United States.
Besides reading the treaty, it would probably also be a good idea to read Khamenei’s new book:
Their plans to re-take Israel for Islam.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You take things way to literally. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already said he won’t honor the agreement. The Israeli’s are not happy. I doubt anyone in the region is happy. So ya, I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up with boots on the ground in the next 5-10 years or so. [/quote]
Are you criticizing an international agreement that you have in fact yet to read? If you have read it, then what provisions do you disagree with, specifically? I don’t believe I’m being off base when I pose that question to you and the other detractors of the deal that have posted in this thread.
Shortly after the 14 July deal, Khamenei publicly endorsed the agreement.
When you use the word “extremely”, I, among others, are inclined to believe that you’ve attributed a very high probability to your assessment, which is US ground forces invading Iran as a result of the nuclear deal. You want to water that down to “I wouldn’t be surprised”? That’s perfectly fine, but you still need to support it with a cogent argument.
How does unhappy Israel + unhappy Gulf Cooperation Council states = US ground invasion of Iran? Currently, there are more than enough US forces in the region to deter and contain Iran, even a nuclear one. An invasion makes zero strategic sense, for the US or her allies.Iran is about the size of Alaska and has a population of nearly 80 million, over two times as many as Iraq - more than enough to make any occupation costly, miserable, and futile for the United States. The US military is extremely wary about the prospect of conducting an air campaign against the Iranian nuclear program, much less a bloody ground invasion and counter-insurgency campaign.
He may. He may not. Regardless, Obama leaves office in 2017, and the JCPOA is effectively a 25 year agreement upon its implementation. ?When the Iranians break the deal? is another interesting display of high confidence, certainty even. Should I take that literally? A prominent voice in American foreign policy recently pinned, “It is indisputable that the United States is more likely to bomb Iran in response to worrisome Iranian activities if those activities are not only troubling in themselves but also violate an agreement.” The Iranians understand that in the context of an agreement, violations on their part would effectively serve as an internationally credible casus belli for an American air campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities. The Iranians also understand that the intrusive inspections regime will ensure that much (if not all) of their nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure will be destroyed in the event of a strike. The US intelligence community is certainly appreciative that its targeting packages will be all the more accurate and effectual.
If you read the agreement text, you would understand that Iran has made some very significant concessions to the international community, which is why it?s being widely lauded among seasoned diplomats and non-proliferation experts alike. It certainly isn?t Munich 2015. The whole ?we don?t negotiate with terrorists? patter is not only trite, but inaccurate. Let us not forget that no less of an eminence as Winston Churchill was not only willing to sit across from IRA leader Michael Collins to negotiate, but saw negotiations as prudent.
The JCPOA was an agreement based squarely upon the issue of Iran?s nuclear program. Its regional behavior was immaterial to the nuclear negotiations, as was its non-recognition of the State of Israel. Only a militarily defeated and castrated Iran would grant such maximalist demands, and such a war would be exceedingly costly. Likewise, the release of four American citizens (three of whom are also Iranian citizens and therefore under the nationality principle of international jurisdiction), as tragic as their plight may be, should not have been made contingent to a successful deal. I understand that the issue is sensitive one for you given that one of the prisoners is a brother Marine, but prudence dictated that the issue remain a separate one than the Iranian nuclear program. Such visceral emotional responses have no place in high politics.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Besides reading the treaty, it would probably also be a good idea to read Khamenei’s new book:
Their plans to re-take Israel for Islam.[/quote]
The JCPOA is not a treaty, per se. Rather, it’s a political agreement. The (Rupert Murdoch owned) New York Post is less grounded analysis and more yellow journalism. If you believe that the operational details of Iranian grand strategy are being published and promulgated, then maybe the Post is for you.
What are you saying? The book was published by Murdock or the book is a lie?
The Republican Guard & Iranian Government never kept their plans or their intentions secret.
I could invoke Goodwin’s Law here, but I won’t.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What are you saying? The book was published by Murdock or the book is a lie?
The Republican Guard & Iranian Government never kept their plans or their intentions secret.
I could invoke Goodwin’s Law here, but I won’t.[/quote]
Plans? Actually, compared to previous antisemitic outbursts, this plan is a “smart” one.
It’s actually all part of a major fight for power inside Iran where hardliners are desperately trying to slow down the political liberalization following the economic opening.
It’s a message from the ayatollah to the hardline conservatives “don’t worry, nothing has changed, we haven’t capitulated to the West, I’ve still got a plan to destroy Israel”, although outright war is suspiciously absent from the plan.
Basically, every Arab country, with the occasional exception of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has (and had) a similarly vitriolic rhetoric towards Israel.
Whenever you want to assert your credentials as a ME power, you take up the Palestine cause - what Erdogan and his neo-islamists did in Turkey.
But don’t forget, whenever the Iranian regime tries a smear campaign for the domestic public, they allege that their opponent is working for their perennial enemies - Saudis.
Like I said before, sunni vs. shia war conflict precedence over all others, even Israel.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What are you saying? The book was published by Murdock or the book is a lie?
The Republican Guard & Iranian Government never kept their plans or their intentions secret.
I could invoke Goodwin’s Law here, but I won’t.[/quote]
That no Iran expert (who actually read Farsi) have commented on this alleged book, meaning it is either a hoax or inconsequential.
The fact that you refer to the IRGC as the “Republican Guard” just further illustrates how unprepared you and your ilk are for an intelligent discussion of US Iran policy. It’s no surprise, then, that many opponents of the deal actually believe Iran will carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or pass on nuclear arms to its terrorist allies or proxies.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
You take things way to literally. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already said he won’t honor the agreement. The Israeli’s are not happy. I doubt anyone in the region is happy. So ya, I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up with boots on the ground in the next 5-10 years or so. [/quote]
Are you criticizing an international agreement that you have in fact yet to read? If you have read it, then what provisions do you disagree with, specifically? I don’t believe I’m being off base when I pose that question to you and the other detractors of the deal that have posted in this thread.
Shortly after the 14 July deal, Khamenei publicly endorsed the agreement.
When you use the word “extremely”, I, among others, are inclined to believe that you’ve attributed a very high probability to your assessment, which is US ground forces invading Iran as a result of the nuclear deal. You want to water that down to “I wouldn’t be surprised”? That’s perfectly fine, but you still need to support it with a cogent argument.
How does unhappy Israel + unhappy Gulf Cooperation Council states = US ground invasion of Iran? Currently, there are more than enough US forces in the region to deter and contain Iran, even a nuclear one. An invasion makes zero strategic sense, for the US or her allies.Iran is about the size of Alaska and has a population of nearly 80 million, over two times as many as Iraq - more than enough to make any occupation costly, miserable, and futile for the United States. The US military is extremely wary about the prospect of conducting an air campaign against the Iranian nuclear program, much less a bloody ground invasion and counter-insurgency campaign.
He may. He may not. Regardless, Obama leaves office in 2017, and the JCPOA is effectively a 25 year agreement upon its implementation. ?When the Iranians break the deal? is another interesting display of high confidence, certainty even. Should I take that literally? A prominent voice in American foreign policy recently pinned, “It is indisputable that the United States is more likely to bomb Iran in response to worrisome Iranian activities if those activities are not only troubling in themselves but also violate an agreement.” The Iranians understand that in the context of an agreement, violations on their part would effectively serve as an internationally credible casus belli for an American air campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities. The Iranians also understand that the intrusive inspections regime will ensure that much (if not all) of their nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure will be destroyed in the event of a strike. The US intelligence community is certainly appreciative that its targeting packages will be all the more accurate and effectual.
If you read the agreement text, you would understand that Iran has made some very significant concessions to the international community, which is why it?s being widely lauded among seasoned diplomats and non-proliferation experts alike. It certainly isn?t Munich 2015. The whole ?we don?t negotiate with terrorists? patter is not only trite, but inaccurate. Let us not forget that no less of an eminence as Winston Churchill was not only willing to sit across from IRA leader Michael Collins to negotiate, but saw negotiations as prudent.
The JCPOA was an agreement based squarely upon the issue of Iran?s nuclear program. Its regional behavior was immaterial to the nuclear negotiations, as was its non-recognition of the State of Israel. Only a militarily defeated and castrated Iran would grant such maximalist demands, and such a war would be exceedingly costly. Likewise, the release of four American citizens (three of whom are also Iranian citizens and therefore under the nationality principle of international jurisdiction), as tragic as their plight may be, should not have been made contingent to a successful deal. I understand that the issue is sensitive one for you given that one of the prisoners is a brother Marine, but prudence dictated that the issue remain a separate one than the Iranian nuclear program. Such visceral emotional responses have no place in high politics.
[/quote]
“The JCPOA was an agreement based squarely upon the issue of Iran?s nuclear program.”
Then why did Iran get concessions from the United States that have zero to do with their nuclear program?
My point of view is pretty simple:
So ya, it wouldn’t surprise me if we end up with boot on the ground in 5-10 years.
I’d love to visit an alternative universe where former President GWB and then Secretary of State Condi Rice negotiated this deal. It would be interesting to see who did the ol flippity flop.
Lastly, this right here: "I understand that the issue is sensitive one for you given that one of the prisoners is a brother Marine, but prudence dictated that the issue remain a separate one than the Iranian nuclear program. Such visceral emotional responses have no place in high politics. "
Is exactly why people hate politicians.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So ya, it wouldn’t surprise me if we end up with boot on the ground in 5-10 years. [/quote]
Only one boot, huh?
Well, maybe it’ll be this boot. He looks pretty bad-ass.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So ya, it wouldn’t surprise me if we end up with boot on the ground in 5-10 years. [/quote]
Only one boot, huh?
Well, maybe it’ll be this boot. He looks pretty bad-ass.[/quote]
Murica only needs one boot especially if it’s the Mad Dog himself!
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
So ya, it wouldn’t surprise me if we end up with boot on the ground in 5-10 years. [/quote]
Only one boot, huh?
Well, maybe it’ll be this boot. He looks pretty bad-ass.
[/quote]
The LCpl underground will get it done!
