Iran Nuclear Deal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

Biz,

I appreciate your book-smarts on these issues, they certainly have there place in this discussion. But you come off a bit naive, gullible, and downright foolish.

Not trying to stir up shit, and I hope you don’t take it that way. But you need to understand how to assess people, because making a deal with the devil means it’s you who usually ends up FUBAR.

I come to this forum to learn and get better, because there are a number of people here that I can learn from. You are a part of that group for me. I don’t see your opposing view as wrong or bad, I try to keep an open mind. I hope you can try and do the same.

102

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
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) [/quote]

You mean, just like the supporters, and every single politician and letter voting member of the public does with every fucking political issue every single day?

I saw someone “thanking” Obama for the recent environmental provisions that HAD YET TO BE RELEASED.

Let’s not pretend what you’re complaining about isn’t so common place that the alternative would truly be shocking. [/quote]

Fair enough. Especially with the general electorate. But policymakers (in addition to the public) should be as informed as possible regarding these issues and it’s disconcerting that some of the arguments being out forth against a deal are reminiscent of those you’d hear at a rural watering hole. That does not make for good policy, which is all I care about.

103

[quote]Bismark wrote:

To be perfectly blunt, you and Angry (and anyone else who read your posts and agreed) know fuck all about international law. One sure mark of a fool is the practice of confirmation bias - that is, to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses and to ignore any evidence to the contrary. You in particular aren’t even engaging in that practice. You’re arguing just to argue (without providing a shred of evidence to boot) about a subject you don’t know an iota about. This is you and your ilk’s modus operandi in any international relations discussion that PWI gives rise to. And to be perfectly clear, I’m not insulting your intelligence (or anyone else’s in this thread), but illuminating your complete lack of intellectual honesty. [/quote]

What color skirt do you squat in?

104

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Oh no it’s not a treaty, it’s an agreement. Ridiculous.[/quote]

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:

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:

In sum, the shrill cries of “this deal is unconstitutional” don’t have a leg to stand on under US and international law.[/quote]

Yawn. It’s political double talk, nothing more. Sematics used in order to avoid as much congressional scrutiny as possible.[/quote]

To be perfectly blunt, you and Angry (and anyone else who read your posts and agreed) know fuck all about international law. One sure mark of a fool is the practice of confirmation bias - that is, to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses and to ignore any evidence to the contrary. You in particular aren’t even engaging in that practice. You’re arguing just to argue (without providing a shred of evidence to boot) about a subject you don’t know an iota about. This is you and your ilk’s modus operandi in any international relations discussion that PWI gives rise to. And to be perfectly clear, I’m not insulting your intelligence (or anyone else’s in this thread), but illuminating your complete lack of intellectual honesty. [/quote]

Dude, all you know about international law is what you’ve read in book or been told to believe by some professor.

Maybe get off you high horse and spend some time in the real world. [/quote]

Last time I checked, no one in this thread is a lawyer specializing in international public law. I have but an introductory understanding of public international law (and haven’t claimed otherwise), which is more than I can say for anyone else who has denied the legality of the deal. At least I’m making a legal argument unlike Pat’s childish denials of established and irrefutable fact. Like all legal studies, int’l law isn’t exactly a subject that lends itself to intuition or autodidacticism, so I don’t know why anyone would take issue with reading the literature, instruction, or both, especially when the professor in my case was a former State Department lawyer with a thorough understanding of both the theory and practice of international law. He taught me how to think much more than he taught me what to think. You seem to harbor unfounded animosity toward the academy.

Now, do you actually take issue with my legal reasoning? Or is your problem with my outrageous demand that others incorporate sources of international law (as I did) into their arguments?

105

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Oh no it’s not a treaty, it’s an agreement. Ridiculous.[/quote]

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:

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:

In sum, the shrill cries of “this deal is unconstitutional” don’t have a leg to stand on under US and international law.[/quote]

Yawn. It’s political double talk, nothing more. Sematics used in order to avoid as much congressional scrutiny as possible.[/quote]

To be perfectly blunt, you and Angry (and anyone else who read your posts and agreed) know fuck all about international law. One sure mark of a fool is the practice of confirmation bias - that is, to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses and to ignore any evidence to the contrary. You in particular aren’t even engaging in that practice. You’re arguing just to argue (without providing a shred of evidence to boot) about a subject you don’t know an iota about. This is you and your ilk’s modus operandi in any international relations discussion that PWI gives rise to. And to be perfectly clear, I’m not insulting your intelligence (or anyone else’s in this thread), but illuminating your complete lack of intellectual honesty. [/quote]

Dude, all you know about international law is what you’ve read in book or been told to believe by some professor.

Maybe get off you high horse and spend some time in the real world. [/quote]

Last time I checked, no one in this thread is a lawyer specializing in international public law. I have but an introductory understanding of public international law (and haven’t claimed otherwise), which is more than I can say for anyone else who has denied the legality of the deal. At least I’m making a legal argument unlike Pat’s childish denials of established and irrefutable fact. Like all legal studies, int’l law isn’t exactly a subject that lends itself to intuition or autodidacticism, so I don’t know why anyone would take issue with reading the literature, instruction, or both, especially when the professor in my case was a former State Department lawyer with a thorough understanding of both the theory and practice of international law. He taught me how to think much more than he taught me what to think. You seem to harbor unfounded animosity toward the academy.

Now, do you actually take issue with my legal reasoning? Or is your problem with my outrageous demand that others incorporate sources of international law (as I did) into their arguments? [/quote]

The only issue I take with your posts is the fact that you portray yourself as an authority on international issues on PWI when you’ve done nothing except read some books and heard some lectures.

The world isn’t black and white as you often suggest.

You’re a smart guy, but you have that academic arrogance about you and no, I don’t have anything against academia.

106

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Dude, all you know about international law is what you’ve read in book or been told to believe by some professor.

Maybe get off you high horse and spend some time in the real world. [/quote]

edit - Never mind. But, yes, I agree.

107

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Biz,

I appreciate your book-smarts on these issues, they certainly have there place in this discussion. But you come off a bit naive, gullible, and downright foolish.

Not trying to stir up shit, and I hope you don’t take it that way. But you need to understand how to assess people, because making a deal with the devil means it’s you who usually ends up FUBAR.

I come to this forum to learn and get better, because there are a number of people here that I can learn from. You are a part of that group for me. I don’t see your opposing view as wrong or bad, I try to keep an open mind. I hope you can try and do the same. [/quote]

“But you come off a bit naive, gullible, and downright foolish…”

Do you care to elaborate? I’ve written in no uncertain terms that I’m for the JCPOA precisely because I do not trust the clerical regime and that the extremely intrusive inspections regime significantly strengthens the military option in the event of a violation. It’s a coup for the intelligence community. Targeting packages will be cover the vast majority (if not all) of Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle, a fact that Tehran is cognizant of. Iran’s breakout capability - the time it would take for Iran to produce enough fissile material for one nuclear device (27 kilograms of 90% highly enriched uranium) - will be increase from 2 months to a year.

In regard to keeping an open mind, it’s precisely what brought me to my current position. Previously, I was in the preventative air campaign camp. As new information became available, my policy preferences changed accordingly.

108

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Last time I checked, no one in this thread is a lawyer specializing in international public law. I have but an introductory understanding of public international law (and haven’t claimed otherwise), which is more than I can say for anyone else who has denied the legality of the deal. At least I’m making a legal argument unlike Pat’s childish denials of established and irrefutable fact. Like all legal studies, int’l law isn’t exactly a subject that lends itself to intuition or autodidacticism, so I don’t know why anyone would take issue with reading the literature, instruction, or both, especially when the professor in my case was a former State Department lawyer with a thorough understanding of both the theory and practice of international law. He taught me how to think much more than he taught me what to think. You seem to harbor unfounded animosity toward the academy.

Now, do you actually take issue with my legal reasoning? Or is your problem with my outrageous demand that others incorporate sources of international law (as I did) into their arguments? [/quote]

I am pretty sure the only person acting like a child here is you.
Find where I ‘denied’ something, go ahead but I won’t hold my breath. All I did was express my opinion on the matter. And I am pretty certain, when I said I disagreed with your opinion, I did it in a respectful way. It’s a shame you could not return in kind.
I was not making statements of fact, I was stating my opinion. For instance, that the ‘agreement’ was done in a skillful way so as to avoid the watermarks that make it a treaty, hence less susceptible to congressional scrutiny. I did not say it was ‘illegal’, I made no statements of that strain in anyway. As a matter of fact, I was agreeing it was legal, as a result of skillful maneuvering putting it in a category outside a treaty. So if anything I agree it’s legal the way it was drawn up. Legal does not equal ‘right’, just legal. So you pretty much wasted your time posting a wall of words trying to prove a point I already agree is a fact.

You’ve done this several times. You seem so horny to “get me” that you jump on anything I say, draw up a whole bunch of assumptions that I did not say, and then go on to ridicule me while expounding your own genius on the matter. Then you draw on popular opinion, you apparently do not have claiming how all the other posters think I am an idiot and how they celebrate you for your destruction of me. Except, that does not seem to have worked, has it? The populace is not questioning my character, they are questioning yours.

If you are interested in discussion, I am happy to engage. If your mission is simply to ‘get me’ any chance you can, jumping on any little thing that may be askew, because I did not put in a scholarly effort to state an opinion it’s best to ignore me. If you think I am that stupid, perhaps you should not waste your time with a dumbass like myself? Feel free to put me on ignore, I do not care. I want to talk to people who want to talk to me. I am not here to boost your ego.

109

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Biz,

I appreciate your book-smarts on these issues, they certainly have there place in this discussion. But you come off a bit naive, gullible, and downright foolish.

Not trying to stir up shit, and I hope you don’t take it that way. But you need to understand how to assess people, because making a deal with the devil means it’s you who usually ends up FUBAR.

I come to this forum to learn and get better, because there are a number of people here that I can learn from. You are a part of that group for me. I don’t see your opposing view as wrong or bad, I try to keep an open mind. I hope you can try and do the same. [/quote]

“But you come off a bit naive, gullible, and downright foolish…”

Do you care to elaborate? I’ve written in no uncertain terms that I’m for the JCPOA precisely because I do not trust the clerical regime and that the extremely intrusive inspections regime significantly strengthens the military option in the event of a violation. It’s a coup for the intelligence community. Targeting packages will be cover the vast majority (if not all) of Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle, a fact that Tehran is cognizant of. Iran’s breakout capability - the time it would take for Iran to produce enough fissile material for one nuclear device (27 kilograms of 90% highly enriched uranium) - will be increase from 2 months to a year.

In regard to keeping an open mind, it’s precisely what brought me to my current position. Previously, I was in the preventative air campaign camp. As new information became available, my policy preferences changed accordingly. [/quote]

I have two problems with the JCPOA. 1) I expect Iran to shit on the whole deal. 2) There will not be a damn thing done punitively when they do.

I base this on Assad using gas just recently, and not a single thing was done about it. Not by the White House, and not by the UN.

110

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Biz,

I appreciate your book-smarts on these issues, they certainly have there place in this discussion. But you come off a bit naive, gullible, and downright foolish.

Not trying to stir up shit, and I hope you don’t take it that way. But you need to understand how to assess people, because making a deal with the devil means it’s you who usually ends up FUBAR.

I come to this forum to learn and get better, because there are a number of people here that I can learn from. You are a part of that group for me. I don’t see your opposing view as wrong or bad, I try to keep an open mind. I hope you can try and do the same. [/quote]

“But you come off a bit naive, gullible, and downright foolish…”

Do you care to elaborate? I’ve written in no uncertain terms that I’m for the JCPOA precisely because I do not trust the clerical regime and that the extremely intrusive inspections regime significantly strengthens the military option in the event of a violation. It’s a coup for the intelligence community. Targeting packages will be cover the vast majority (if not all) of Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle, a fact that Tehran is cognizant of. Iran’s breakout capability - the time it would take for Iran to produce enough fissile material for one nuclear device (27 kilograms of 90% highly enriched uranium) - will be increase from 2 months to a year.

In regard to keeping an open mind, it’s precisely what brought me to my current position. Previously, I was in the preventative air campaign camp. As new information became available, my policy preferences changed accordingly. [/quote]

I have two problems with the JCPOA. 1) I expect Iran to shit on the whole deal. 2) There will not be a damn thing done punitively when they do.

I base this on Assad using gas just recently, and not a single thing was done about it. Not by the White House, and not by the UN.

[/quote]

Oh those don’t count, because they are only chlorine. Chlorine is an industrial chemical used by many industries, so they are allowed to have and use chlorine. They aren’t real chemical weapons. The only ones the administration cares about are chemical like Sarin, Yperite, and VX. Since chlorine is used peacefully in industry, it’s perfectly ok for Assad to use it to kill people. Chlorine has managed to bleach out that ‘red line’.
/sarcasm

111

[quote]Bismark wrote:

To be perfectly blunt, you and Angry (and anyone else who read your posts and agreed) know fuck all about international law. One sure mark of a fool is the practice of confirmation bias - that is, to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses and to ignore any evidence to the contrary. You in particular aren’t even engaging in that practice. You’re arguing just to argue (without providing a shred of evidence to boot) about a subject you don’t know an iota about. This is you and your ilk’s modus operandi in any international relations discussion that PWI gives rise to. And to be perfectly clear, I’m not insulting your intelligence (or anyone else’s in this thread), but illuminating your complete lack of intellectual honesty. [/quote]

You know the beautiful thing about the Constitution, Biz? You really don’t need a law degree to understand it. It’s pretty damn straight forward. Like the Treaty powers I mentioned earlier: The SENATE needs to approve treaties. THIS IS A FUCKING TREATY. And the Second Amendment: what part of “SHALL not be infringed” is so hard to fucking understand? These are not complicated concepts that are open to interpretation! Yet we’ve had Lawyers, “Constitutional scholars”, and rogue Judges with an activist agenda who HAVE made it complicated and have stripped us of rights, of security, and of vital checks and balances in the process. We are LESS FREE as a result, and we are paying the price.

It’s very clear that the framers of the Constitution wanted LIMITED government, CHECKS and BALANCES to power, and upheld LIBERTY as the fundamental principle of the whole fucking thing. That’s not what we have anymore. I would even go as far as to say we have a “post Constitutional” government. And with that drift away from those founding principles, our problems as a country have magnified. It doesn’t take an advanced degree to see this!

You like to come on here and beat everyone around because you work in a think tank or something and have a degree in international relations/foreign policy or whatever. Good for you. But you don’t have a lick of fucking common sense, which is the main reason why the world is the way it is: fucked up. It’s a lack of common sense. You see, common sense would tell you that this nuclear deal with Iran is a clusterfuck.

You have a President making unilateral decisions WITH OUR ENEMY about NUCLEAR FUCKING WEAPONS, giving all sorts of major concessions while basically lying to the American people about how safe they are, when in fact, the opposite is true. Then there is the “side deals” that the IAEA has with Iran (cuz in his infinite wisdom, Kerry decided that we will trust THEM to inspect and not allow ANY US inspectors in) that was kept “hush hush” until Tom Cotton blew it up. Part’s of the TREATY are classified. Why? What is so damn secret about a deal with our enemy that we don’t have the right to see? Could it be that if the ENTIRE truth about the “deal” were brought to light and was open to scrutiny that NO ONE would support it? Riddle me that!

Then you call me intellectually dishonest? I’m about the most intellectually honest member of this board. I’ve changed my position on several key issues based on evidence (that’s why I come here) presented by other posters. But if the evidence presented is lacking, then I don’t change my mind. Or if I have a strong gut feeling about a pattern of behavior, I don’t accept a “surface explanation”. I’m stubborn, yes - just ask any woman I’ve ever dated, but intellectually dishonest? My friend, I’m honest to a fault… And I take exception to your accusation.

Your basic argument with ALL of this is “you’re not qualified to have this discussion”. I swear, Biz, if I had a dollar for every time you written this, I’d take all of the PWI regulars to Morton’s! I don’t NEED to be “qualified” to have an opinion on this matter, or any other topic we bring up. I’m a fucking citizen of this great country, and I have every RIGHT to voice my opinion. I have a right demand that MY elected representatives vote in the way I want them to.

And if they don’t, I have the right to vote them out of office. That’s how this thing works: a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people. As in US CITIZENS, not the international fucking community. Fuck them, this is MY country. And this deal puts MY children at risk. This deal all but guarantees WWIII. In my HUMBLE opinion.

But you guys with your PhD’s sit around in rooms, gaming these situations out, and come to conclusions that are based on YOUR ideology and prejudice, and then turn around and have the balls to call ME intellectually dishonest? LOL, I don’t think so, pal.

112

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I’m about the most intellectually honest member of this board.
[/quote]
I would totally agree with this. If nothing else you are honest as the day is long. I never have to question where I sit with you.

He ain’t got no PhD, he’s just a student.

113

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

You know the beautiful thing about the Constitution, Biz? You really don’t need a law degree to understand it. It’s pretty damn straight forward. Like the Treaty powers I mentioned earlier: The SENATE needs to approve treaties. THIS IS A FUCKING TREATY.
[/quote]

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

In sum, the shrill cries of “this deal is unconstitutional” don’t have a leg to stand on under US and international law.

114

As quite a few others have pointed out, the political will won’t exist to re-establish sanctions against Iran once trade has restarted should Iran run afoul of the proposed JCPOA.

Ironically, I believe Iran is one of the more trustworthy parties to the agreement, right behind the US, the UK, and Germany but ahead of France, China, Russia.

115

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

As quite a few others have pointed out, the political will won’t exist to re-establish sanctions against Iran once trade has restarted should Iran run afoul of the proposed JCPOA.

Ironically, I believe Iran is one of the more trustworthy parties to the agreement, right behind the US, the UK, and Germany but ahead of France, China, Russia. [/quote]

Well, once the cat’s out of the bag, it’s awful tough to put it back in. Sanctions can be reestablished or new ones can be created, but ‘snapping back into place’ is highly unlikely.
I cannot agree that Iran is trustworthy at all, be it in these negotiations or anything else. Given their recent saber-rattling and name calling, right after the agreement was negotiated, I cannot say I trust them at all. What I do trust in, is their desire to do evil. And with a 24 day grace period prior to inspections I trust them to cover up any nefarious activities they may be doing.

116

29 US Nuclear Scientists Praise Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in Letter to Obama

117

Former U.S. Diplomats Praise Iran Deal

118

In Israel, Some Support the Iran Deal

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/takingnote/2015/07/23/in-israel-some-support-the-iran-deal/?referrer=

119

This is comforting. As pertaining the the IAEA inspections, no details of how those inspections are to take place have been revealed by the IAEA to Congress or any other body for that matter. We can take comfort in that they claim they are ‘ready’. It would be foolish for Congress to vote on the measure until they have the documents pertaining to the inspections in hand.
There is way to much faith and trust in this agreement for my taste. How is congress to vote on the measure without having fully understand how these inspections are to take place?
Inspections are the cornerstone to this agreement and we have no idea what, why, where or how they are to be done.

This is what we do know so far based on the article:
“Under the agreement, Iran would have 14 days to either allow inspectors access to a suspicious site or to provide proof that the activity in question doesnâ??t violate the agreement. If inspectors are not satisfied, the complaint would then be referred to an eight-member panel, representing the nations which negotiated the agreement, that would be given a week to decide if the IAEA should be granted access to the site. If the panel decides an inspection is warranted, Tehran would have an additional three days to provide access.”

Oh, I feel better about it now. :expressionless:

120

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

As quite a few others have pointed out, the political will won’t exist to re-establish sanctions against Iran once trade has restarted should Iran run afoul of the proposed JCPOA.

Ironically, I believe Iran is one of the more trustworthy parties to the agreement, right behind the US, the UK, and Germany but ahead of France, China, Russia. [/quote]

Here’s more on the sanctions snap-back option.

And of course this applies only to the 6 countries involved in the negotiations. Further, businesses, especially outside the six, may not be eager to comply and it give Iran an out to walk away from the deal completely. In other words, if sanctions are reapplied Iran can just quit the agreement. So in order to keep them in the agreement, we cannot just start slapping sanctions for any little violation. This means that Iran can get away with lots of little violations because the West wants to keep Iran engaged and not discouraged.
Further, all Iran has to do is get what they want out of the deal, and once they do they can violate a term and back out of the deal.
I can see the incentive being high for Iran to comply initially, but once they get on their feet they really won’t need it anymore. Particularly if they are primarily working with major powers such as China and Russia who are not as likely to comply with the sanctions. It seems like Iran has the hold card in this agreement.
The more I look at the details, the worse this deal gets.