[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
My question for those that oppose this deal: If not this, then what?
[/quote]
100% access at any time without notice would be a good start.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
My question for those that oppose this deal: If not this, then what?
[/quote]
Since when did it become a matter of extreme urgency? If we don’t hand them 150 billion and allow them to develop a nuclear weapon in 10 years then what? We didn’t even get the four hostages back with this crappy deal.
d
It’s not a matter of cutting a really horrible deal for the US an Israel or something bad will happen. It’s cutting a really horrible deal where something bad will happen.
Keep sanctioning dat ass.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Ignoring a preponderance of evidence contrary to one’s predetermined conclusion Is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. If Angry truly believes that treaties under Article II of the constitution are the only source of international law, he is either intentionally ignoring the vast and unanimous literature that demonstrates otherwise, or he is a fool. I don’t believe he is a fool, far from it. So I logically have to conclude the former.
[/quote]I’d say I’m an idealist. And I don’t give a shit about “international law”. There is no such thing because international law ENFORCEMENT is inconsistent at best - they try one brutal dictator as a war criminal, and they bring the next one to lunch at the White House. History shows us the most likely consequence of “violating” international law is a strongly worded letter from the UN, but I digress. What I care about is the Constitution and how it’s being trampled. The MANNER in which this TREATY has been adopted is a prime example of the erosion of the Constitution. Forget about how shitty the treaty is and how my seven year old could have negotiated a better deal, the PROCESS, IMHO, violated the Constitution by #1 bypassing the Senate and #2 giving aid and comfort TO OUR ENEMY. In my opinion, Obama and Kerry committed treason with this “deal”. Look up the definition for Treaty and look up the definition for Treason. They both fit in this context, but everyone seems to forget the English language and tries to twist things to push some bullshit agenda funded by large corporations who are chomping at the bit to get into that market and sell their shit.[quote]
No, I don’t have a doctoral degree (yet), but I do have a BA in International Relations and am currently pursuing an MA in Security Studies. It’s curious that you would bring up my credentials (or lack thereof) as if doing so somehow debases my arguments, yet you are unwilling to learn the very basics of the topic at hand. It’s frustrating to put on my pads to play football only to have you sodomize yourself with a cricket bat on the fifty yard line while you declare that you’ve scored a touchdown. [/quote]
Perhaps everyone seems to bring up your “credentials” because you have an annoying habit of telling everyone they are “not qualified to have this discussion”. Well it turns out, neither are you! LOL
YOU are the one who brings qualifications and by implication, credentials, into the discussion. Why not try being less of a dick about people’s opinions and chose the arguments you want to address and ignore the one’s you don’t want to address? You don’t HAVE to insult everyone you speak with. But when the very first sentence of EVERY. SINGLE. REPLY. begins with, “you’re not qualified to have this discussion”, it tends to rub people the wrong way.
I’m not graduate student, I’m a commercial electrician with computer access. But guess what? I’m a CITIZEN. I have CHILDREN who are likely to pay the consequences of these foreign policy blunders. THAT MAKES ME QUALIFIED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION![/quote]
I think your a big teddy bear actually. Tough veneer, but soft and squishy on the inside. I mean that as a compliment. I think your a nice guy, who learned his lessons the hard way, but learned them nonetheless. And I do think you are qualified to have this or any other discussion.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Fears that a nuclear Iran would carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or transfer nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist organizations are not only misplaced, but are red herrings.
[/quote]
Then why have an agreement at all? If we have nothing to fear? We had no agreement with the British and the French when they produced an actual bomb and no, we didn’t have anything to fear from them either.
And after all, Iran says it’s not going to produce a nuclear devise so why not just believe them? Since there’s nothing to fear after all…[/quote]
Correct, if that were true then there would be no need for this or any other agreement.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Fears that a nuclear Iran would carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or transfer nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist organizations are not only misplaced, but are red herrings.
[/quote]
Then why have an agreement at all? If we have nothing to fear? We had no agreement with the British and the French when they produced an actual bomb and no, we didn’t have anything to fear from them either.
And after all, Iran says it’s not going to produce a nuclear devise so why not just believe them? Since there’s nothing to fear after all…[/quote]
The agreement provides the framework for the second most intrusive inspections regime in international history, aimed at preventing Iran from weaponizing its nuclear program. For its nonproliferation goal, diplomacy was the policy option that posed the fewest costs and risks for the United State. Where did I write that there was no reason to be concerned about the prospect of Iran joining the nuclear weapons club? Are you really this dishonest or are you really this daft? The UK and France became nuclear weapons states (NWS) in 1952 and 1960, respectively. They are known as de jure NWS, as they joined the nuclear club prior to the establishment of the nonproliferation regime with the advent of the NPT in 1968. Both were also charter members of NATO, which made them treaty allies since 1949. One must also consider the bipolar nature of the international system during the Cold War and balance of threat theory. British and French nuclear weapons didn’t hold the same meaning for American policymakers as Soviet nuclear weapons. European nuclear arms also added capability, commitment, and credibility to NATO nuclear deterrence, which had previously been based solely on the American nuclear umbrella. You should know all of this as a self-professed student of history and the fact that I’ve had to hold your hand through this very line of reasoning more than once in this forum.
[/quote]
Being the second most intrusive inspections is little comfort regarding the concerns of this deal. It is not enough to secure that Iran does not make a bomb, it does not remove Iran from being a regional treat nor does it make Israel or any other state safe from Tehran making good on it’s threats. It does not stop them from sponsoring terror.
It does infuse their economy with cash, lots of it. It does remove the conventional weapons embargo where conventional weapons are a more immediate threat. It does not get our hostages back. It does not ensure peace with Iran’s neighbors. It does not ensure compliance after Tehran gets what it wants out of the deal and it is way to short. 15 years is nothing, a drop in the bucket.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Keep sanctioning dat ass.[/quote]
In the context of successful negotiations, the broad international sanctions regime so skillfully constructed by US diplomats cannot be deepened and is arguably unsustainable. Given American firms limited economic exchange with Iran since the revolution, unilateral US sanctions are peripheral. Even if they were not, their impact would be mitigated by the relaxing of international sanctions.
Iran, sanctions, and the illusion of a better bargain
[quote]Bismark wrote:
the illusion of a better bargain
[/quote]
We literally got nothing…
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
My question for those that oppose this deal: If not this, then what?
[/quote]
My question for the erudite Mr. Bismark is why he stays around if no one here is qualified to discuss things with him.[/quote]
Another ad hominem erroneously directed at me. No one needs relevant training or experience to be able to discuss American foreign policy. Quite to the contrary, I welcome a vibrant community of informed citizens doing just that. That does, however, require that all who participate in such a dialogue be literate in the basic grammar of international relations. Why post on topics without having learned their most rudimentary basics?
An interpretation cannot possibly be useful if it doesn’t rest on a foundation of lucid understanding. There isn’t much use - for any of us - in playing tennis if everyone didn’t bring a racket. This thread is rife with this phenomenon, whether it be diplomacy, international law, deterrence theory, international political economy, nuclear strategy, or proliferation dynamics. It is so ridiculous for me to reject arguments from intuition?
I take the time and effort to write reasoned and articulated arguments bolstered by citations of credible sources. Yet, I’m somehow in the wrong for pointing out that in response, others are pulling rabbits from very small and threadbare hats.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Fears that a nuclear Iran would carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or transfer nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist organizations are not only misplaced, but are red herrings.
[/quote]
Then why have an agreement at all? If we have nothing to fear? We had no agreement with the British and the French when they produced an actual bomb and no, we didn’t have anything to fear from them either.
And after all, Iran says it’s not going to produce a nuclear devise so why not just believe them? Since there’s nothing to fear after all…[/quote]
Correct, if that were true then there would be no need for this or any other agreement.[/quote]
To my knowledge, no one is this advocating this position, so it’s very much a straw man.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
the illusion of a better bargain
[/quote]
We literally got nothing…[/quote]
The hardliners in Tehran are saying the same, and they’re closer to the mark. If you read the JCPOA, it becomes clear that Iran is making most of the concessions. I believe you’re misreading the title. It isn’t that the deal is ideal (it isn’t), but it’s close to the best we could have hoped for given the world as it is. The kind of deal critics want is possible only through a costly and risk filled ground war, assuming the United States can achieve a decisive victory. That is why a plethora of senior nuclear scientists, diplomats, intelligence officers, proliferation experts, and military officers have publicly endorsed the agreement as it is.
As Steven M. Walt writes, "The most obvious example of magical thinking in contemporary policy discourse, of course, is the myth of a “better deal” with Iran. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, opponents of the JCPOA keep insisting additional sanctions, more threats to use force, another round of Stuxnet, or if necessary, dropping a few bombs, would have convinced Iran to run up the white flag and give the United States everything it ever demanded for the past 15 years. The latest example of such dubious reasoning is the New York Timesâ??s David Brooks, who thinks an agreement where Iran makes most of the concessions is a Vietnam-style defeat for the United States and imagines that tougher U.S. negotiators (or maybe war) would have produced a clear and decisive victory.
Never mind that while the United States ramped up sanctions, Iran went from zero centrifuges to 19,000. Never mind that there was no international support for harsher sanctions and that unilateral U.S. sanctions wouldnâ??t increase the pressure in any meaningful way. Never mind that attacking Iran with military force would not end its nuclear program and only increase Iranâ??s interest in having an actual weapon. Never mind that the deal blocks every path to a bomb for at least a decade. And never mind that the myth of a “better deal” ignores Diplomacy 101: To get any sort of lasting agreement, it has to provide something for all of the parties."
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[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.[/quote]
Ignoring a preponderance of evidence contrary to one’s predetermined conclusion Is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. If Angry truly believes that treaties under Article II of the constitution are the only source of international law, he is either intentionally ignoring the vast and unanimous literature that demonstrates otherwise, or he is a fool. I don’t believe he is a fool, far from it. So I logically have to conclude the former.
[/quote]I’d say I’m an idealist. And I don’t give a shit about “international law”. There is no such thing because international law ENFORCEMENT is inconsistent at best - they try one brutal dictator as a war criminal, and they bring the next one to lunch at the White House. History shows us the most likely consequence of “violating” international law is a strongly worded letter from the UN, but I digress. What I care about is the Constitution and how it’s being trampled. The MANNER in which this TREATY has been adopted is a prime example of the erosion of the Constitution. Forget about how shitty the treaty is and how my seven year old could have negotiated a better deal, the PROCESS, IMHO, violated the Constitution by #1 bypassing the Senate and #2 giving aid and comfort TO OUR ENEMY. In my opinion, Obama and Kerry committed treason with this “deal”. Look up the definition for Treaty and look up the definition for Treason. They both fit in this context, but everyone seems to forget the English language and tries to twist things to push some bullshit agenda funded by large corporations who are chomping at the bit to get into that market and sell their shit.[quote]
[/quote]
Strongly worded letter? Good to know you’ve seen Team America.
The agreement isn’t a treaty. I’ve made it abundantly clear why that is the case. If you want to continue to disagree, at least make the effort of addressing the legal argument I posted earlier in this thread.
You’re off base regarding the nature of international law.
The default assumptions of critics of international law are generally as follows:
(1) An erroneous fixation on criminal law
(2) A misunderstanding of the efficacy of domestic law (less than 1/5 of the total crime index is cleared by arrest.)
(3) The belief that international law is almost purely political. The difference between “law” and politics falsely implies a relative absence of political considerations at the domestic level.
(4) Central institutions are more reliable, long-lasting, and stable. Given the numerous failures of domestic legal systems and the paucity of interstate war in the post-WWII era reveals, however, that central institutions do not necessarily produce a stable, predictable rule of law.
In fairness to critics, when the vital interests of states appear to be at stake, law may play a secondary role. However, even during a crisis with grave implications for nationality security, analysis reveals that policymakers more often than not demonstrate a concern for the law ran throughout the deliberations. This is true even of crises that potentially threaten the survival of a state, as evidence by the conduct of American policymakers during the Cuban missile crisis.
Why do states obey international law? While the international system lacks impartial third-part mechanisms to enforce international law, the empirical record demonstrates that states comply with most international law most of the time. This motivation for obedience stems from a collective desire for order and predictability. Extralegal factors that promote compliance stem from enlightened self-interest. To a great extent, international law reflects the common and complimentary interests of states. Being a political system, states will seek to interpret obligations to their own advantage. But being a legal system that is built on the consent of other parties, they will be constrained by the necessity of justifying their actions in legal terms. States also obey international law to maintain their credibility and reputation, important considerations in the everyday interaction between governments. Having the reputation of keeping oneâ??s word and dealing within the law can facilitate good relations and aid in achieving goals that require the cooperation of others. A reputation for principled behavior and for being dependable and reliable is an asset not to be undervalued in the anarchic realm of international relations.
Routine observance of international law promotes a â??habit of lawâ?? â?? a simple acceptance of the law as a factor in everyday decision making. States also obey international law with the principle of reciprocity in mind. Any government contemplating a violation of the rule of law must consider the reactions of other states. As Emmerich de Vattel so astutely argued in his classic and influential treatise â??The Law of Nationsâ??, the golden rule also applies to the sovereigns of states.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Fears that a nuclear Iran would carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or transfer nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist organizations are not only misplaced, but are red herrings.
[/quote]
Then why have an agreement at all? If we have nothing to fear? We had no agreement with the British and the French when they produced an actual bomb and no, we didn’t have anything to fear from them either.
And after all, Iran says it’s not going to produce a nuclear devise so why not just believe them? Since there’s nothing to fear after all…[/quote]
Correct, if that were true then there would be no need for this or any other agreement.[/quote]
To my knowledge, no one is this advocating this position, so it’s very much a straw man.
[/quote]
You yourself said the threat of an Iraian first strike & them giving nuclear weapons to terrorists are unfounded fears, red herrings you actually said. If you are not advocating that position please for the 4th time, do something besides insult people and talk up your pseudointellectual B.S. and explain what position you are advocating. For if we have nothing to fear from the 2 worst scenarios, what else is there to fear from Iran?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
the illusion of a better bargain
[/quote]
We literally got nothing…[/quote]
The hardliners in Tehran are saying the same, and they’re closer to the mark. If you read the JCPOA, it becomes clear that Iran is making most of the concessions. [/quote]
What exactly did the U.S. get out of this deal? They kicked the nuclear can down the road a few years, that is all.
What exactly did Iran concede to?
[quote]
I believe you’re misreading the title. It isn’t that the deal is ideal (it isn’t), but it’s close to the best we could have hoped for given the world as it is. [/quote]
That’s pretty sad if true.
[quote]
The kind of deal critics want is possible only through a costly and risk filled ground war, assuming the United States can achieve a decisive victory. That is why a plethora of senior nuclear scientists, diplomats, intelligence officers, proliferation experts, and military officers have publicly endorsed the agreement as it is. [/quote]
And a plethora of folks have public decried the deal.
[quote]
As Steven M. Walt writes, "The most obvious example of magical thinking in contemporary policy discourse, of course, is the myth of a “better deal” with Iran. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, opponents of the JCPOA keep insisting additional sanctions, more threats to use force, another round of Stuxnet, or if necessary, dropping a few bombs, would have convinced Iran to run up the white flag and give the United States everything it ever demanded for the past 15 years. The latest example of such dubious reasoning is the New York TimesÃ?¢??s David Brooks, who thinks an agreement where Iran makes most of the concessions is a Vietnam-style defeat for the United States and imagines that tougher U.S. negotiators (or maybe war) would have produced a clear and decisive victory. [/quote]
Is Iran better off now or under the sanction regime? The answer is off course now.
[quote]
Never mind that while the United States ramped up sanctions, Iran went from zero centrifuges to 19,000. [/quote]
That’s an enforcement failure.
[quote]
Never mind that there was no international support for harsher sanctions and that unilateral U.S. sanctions wouldn�¢??t increase the pressure in any meaningful way. [/quote]
I’m pretty sure our country still holds enough power to increase pressure in a meaningful way.
[quote]
Never mind that attacking Iran with military force would not end its nuclear program and only increase Iran�¢??s interest in having an actual weapon. [/quote]
That’s a pretty bold statement. Military force has ended all sorts of expansions such as Japanese imperialism. I’m pretty sure it’ll work to stop Iran’s nuclear program.
[quote]
Never mind that the deal blocks every path to a bomb for at least a decade. [/quote]
If you believe that I’ve got some beach front property in Kansas to sell you.
[quote]
And never mind that the myth of a “better deal” ignores Diplomacy 101: To get any sort of lasting agreement, it has to provide something for all of the parties."[/quote]
What did the U.S. get?
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Fears that a nuclear Iran would carry out a nuclear first strike against Israel or transfer nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist organizations are not only misplaced, but are red herrings.
[/quote]
Then why have an agreement at all? If we have nothing to fear? We had no agreement with the British and the French when they produced an actual bomb and no, we didn’t have anything to fear from them either.
And after all, Iran says it’s not going to produce a nuclear devise so why not just believe them? Since there’s nothing to fear after all…[/quote]
Correct, if that were true, then there would be no need for this or any other agreement.[/quote]
To my knowledge, no one is this advocating this position, so it’s very much a straw man.
[/quote]
Hence why I put “…if that were true, then…”
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
ZEB, there’s no point in debating you. You’re a partisan hack who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject before posting on it. Which is why you resort to attacking me - you are not equipped to address the substance of my arguments. I may as well play chess with a toaster.
[/quote]
Hey kid you better check your previous post to me. You began the put downs, I simply responded in kind. As for debating about handing Iran 150 billion and a nuclear weapon to go along with it, it does not take an Einstein (which you are not) to understand that it’s a really bad deal for the US.
Better spread your propaganda elsewhere, I don’t see anyone on this site buying into it.
bye.[/quote]
For the record, I appreciate Bismark’s point of view much more than that of certain others.
He does have a point that even an attempt at understanding how professionals approach these topics would provide quite a bit of relativity onto the strictly partisan approaches most on here parrot. It’s as easy as adding a couple resources to your newsfeed, reading a bit, then letting things sink in.
[quote]theuofh wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
ZEB, there’s no point in debating you. You’re a partisan hack who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject before posting on it. Which is why you resort to attacking me - you are not equipped to address the substance of my arguments. I may as well play chess with a toaster.
[/quote]
Hey kid you better check your previous post to me. You began the put downs, I simply responded in kind. As for debating about handing Iran 150 billion and a nuclear weapon to go along with it, it does not take an Einstein (which you are not) to understand that it’s a really bad deal for the US.
Better spread your propaganda elsewhere, I don’t see anyone on this site buying into it.
bye.[/quote]
For the record, I appreciate Bismark’s point of view much more than that of certain others.
He does have a point that even an attempt at understanding how professionals approach these topics would provide quite a bit of relativity onto the strictly partisan approaches most on here parrot. It’s as easy as adding a couple resources to your newsfeed, reading a bit, then letting things sink in.
[/quote]
I’ve been saying this for years, in regards to business, taxes, etc…, it ain’t gonna happen so we might as well move on.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
My question for those that oppose this deal: If not this, then what?
[/quote]
Well first and foremost if not this deal, then all options are still on the table. Under this deal we limit our options. We basically have to sit on our hands until Iran screws up. And they will have to screw up pretty big for the ‘snap back’ to take effect. Obviously in a trade agreement there are two sides. In a snap-back scenario we not only have to worry about the effects to Iran, we have to worry about the other partner in the trade agreement and the country they are operating from.
We still have sanctions and we can sanction further, though admittedly they would have little more effect than they have now.
We can look to freeze more assets of Iran. We cannot stop Russia or China from weaken their ties by meddling in their affairs. We can go after their interests. We can reel in their support of terrorists like Hezbollah, we can take the restraint off of Israel, to deal with matters as they see fit. We can attack their internet blockade and release the free flow of information into the country, we can back opposition parties and increase their influence. We can blockage their ships from reaching South America. There are tons of things we can do if we wanted to to make their lives miserable and bring a better set of concessions from them.
We can even do positive things like provide support for clean energy solutions in exchange for negative impacts to their atomic energy plans. Provide humanitarian aid and relief to the population, etc.
Supporters of the plan have been arguing that if not the JCPOA then it will be war. Last time I checked, we were and are still pretty far from war with Iran. This is not like the Cuban Missile Crisis as the obamites have been trying to make it.
We have options and we can negotiate a better deal if we have the right combination of pressure and relief. Relieving sanctions in good faith while negotiating was a horrible idea. It put us in a weaker position. We provide relief when Iran acts right and only when they act right.
Perspective from a Jewish Iranian-American:
She emphasizes issues that I’ve written about here in PWI before, the pro-American stance of the Iranians in general, which makes them ironically perhaps the only Muslim country that is positively predisposed towards the US of A.
Also, a fascinating three year old insight how the relationship between Israel and Khomeini’s Iran soured with Israel’s rapprochement with Saudi Arabia in the early 90ies and how they would actually be natural allies: