The Iran deal

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Sun Aug 09, 2015 8:49 pm

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:Doubtless these 29 scientists, including some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control and five nobel laureates, don't have a clue what they are talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/world ... obama.html

Or they've been recruited. Obama is running a political campaign over the deal, and organizing "open letters" like this is one of the staples of such campaigns.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Voronwe_the_Faithful » Mon Aug 10, 2015 5:23 am

Just out of curiosity, what possible inducements do you think Obama et al. could have offered to someone like the 87 year old Richard L Garwin to "recruit" him to sign such a letter?
User avatar
Voronwe_the_Faithful
Mariner

 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:53 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Mon Aug 10, 2015 7:11 am

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:Doubtless these 29 scientists, including some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control and five nobel laureates, don't have a clue what they are talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/world ... obama.html


Because scientists . . . know so much about political deals? That's like asking the local government of Florida its opinions on Anthropogenic Climate Change.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10562
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Voronwe_the_Faithful » Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:28 am

No, scientists -- particularly these scientists -- know about nuclear weapons, and what it takes to prevent a country from getting them. That is, after all, what this deal is all about.
User avatar
Voronwe_the_Faithful
Mariner

 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:53 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:18 pm

hamlet wrote:
Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:Doubtless these 29 scientists, including some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control and five nobel laureates, don't have a clue what they are talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/world ... obama.html


Because scientists . . . know so much about political deals? That's like asking the local government of Florida its opinions on Anthropogenic Climate Change.



Well those Florida officials wouldn't be able to answer, would they, because their governor has forbidden Florida state officials from using the phrase "Climate Change".


Hamlet, please don't tell me that you've bought into the new Conservative Ideal that Ignorance is a Virtue?? We hear so many Republicans declare proudly that they're "no scientist" when it comes to discussing scientific matters, you haven't fallen for that, have you? These scientists are experts in the field of Nuclear Weaponry and many have specific experience in non-proliferation programs. I'd say they are probably far better qualified to assess the technical aspects of this deal than Sen Cruz or Domald Trump or any one of those "non-Scientists" on the Right who claim to hate it.
Last edited by Minardil on Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:20 pm

Storyteller wrote:
Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:Doubtless these 29 scientists, including some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control and five nobel laureates, don't have a clue what they are talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/world ... obama.html

Or they've been recruited. Obama is running a political campaign over the deal, and organizing "open letters" like this is one of the staples of such campaigns.



Sure. You are definitely correct that people are playing politics over the deal, but I think it's the ones trying to kill the deal at all costs.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:22 pm

And opponents STILL haven't provided details on what the "Better Deal" would look like or how they would achieve it.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Mon Aug 10, 2015 8:56 pm

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:Just out of curiosity, what possible inducements do you think Obama et al. could have offered to someone like the 87 year old Richard L Garwin to "recruit" him to sign such a letter?

You mean outside of the "support anything Obama does or the evil Republicans win"?

Find a group of scientists with at least tangentially relevant credentials who identify as Democrats, preferably old enough that they won't live to see the practical results of the mess they're being asked to endorse. Tell them that the Democratic party's credibility and election chances are at stake. Tell them that a Republican President would repeal the ever-so-wonderful Obamacare and other nice legislation, so even if the deal lets Iran have nukes, there are more important things to protect. Tell them to write a letter.
Last edited by Storyteller on Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Mon Aug 10, 2015 9:13 pm

Minardil wrote:
Storyteller wrote:
Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:Doubtless these 29 scientists, including some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control and five nobel laureates, don't have a clue what they are talking about.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/world ... obama.html

Or they've been recruited. Obama is running a political campaign over the deal, and organizing "open letters" like this is one of the staples of such campaigns.



Sure. You are definitely correct that people are playing politics over the deal, but I think it's the ones trying to kill the deal at all costs.

But of course. That's why Obama has been hurling dual loyalty accusations all over the place - because it's not him who's playing politics and it's not him pushing the deal down America's throat at all costs.

(Not that the Congress' decision matters of course, since Obama ran with Zarif's idea of turning the deal into UNSC-endorsed international law before it goes through the US Congress).

I know your views, Minardil, we've been talking for a decade or so. A couple of years ago, if someone told you that Obama would strike a deal like that with Iran, you would have accused them of baseless and malicious slander. If you search your posts on the related subjects from recent past, you will see jut how far your views have moved along with the party line.

As for how a better deal would look like- that's pretty obvious. The model to follow should not have been the negotiations with North Korea, but the disarmament of Libya. Those anywhere, anytime inspections that Obama promised over and over again until revealing that they were never on the table? Should have been on the table. Fordow and other fortified underground nuclear facilities should have been demolished, whatever nuclear research is left should have remained on the surface. Iran should never have been allowed several times more working centrifuges than Pakistan had when it went nuclear. Americans should never have been excluded from the ranks of inspectors allowed to take part in the verification process (the current deal limits the nationalities of inspectors strictly to countries who have diplomatic relations with Iran). Sanctions relief should never have been as broad, should never have included removing limits on the sale of weapons to Iran, certainly not air-to-air systems and ballistic missiles. And the whole thing should have been tied to concrete changes in Iran's policy regarding Syria and to the end of financing and arming dangerous and disruptive Shi'ite proxy armies all over the region. THAT would be a good deal.

Would the deal be unfavorable to Iran? Sure. They would be paying the price for re-joining the international community, rather than doing the world a favor by doing so and getting paid handsomely for it. Libya's Ghaddafi saw such a move as worthwhile. Would Iran have agreed to it? Maybe not, in which case the right way would be cranking the sanctions up until they do. Then again, agreements on unfavorable terms are nothing new in the world's political history and for the most part didn't turn out too badly. Plenty of countries at various points in history signed deals up to and including unconditional surrender.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby hamlet » Tue Aug 11, 2015 9:03 am

Minardil wrote:Hamlet, please don't tell me that you've bought into the new Conservative Ideal that Ignorance is a Virtue?? We hear so many Republicans declare proudly that they're "no scientist" when it comes to discussing scientific matters, you haven't fallen for that, have you? These scientists are experts in the field of Nuclear Weaponry and many have specific experience in non-proliferation programs. I'd say they are probably far better qualified to assess the technical aspects of this deal than Sen Cruz or Domald Trump or any one of those "non-Scientists" on the Right who claim to hate it.


Yes, because that's exactly me. I worship at the altar of Karl Rove, the high Cruz, and the great Trump. I am the Republican scion being groomed for running in the very next presidential election made wholly qualified by my complete and total ignorance of even the most basic international concepts and happenings.

All hail the Great Elephant! All Hail!

Because, of course, there's no such thing as an intelligent and honest critique of the deal. Anybody who has even the slightest doubt about it is obvoiusly a partisan Republican hack.

Kneel before your pachyderm overlords.

:roll:
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10562
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Voronwe_the_Faithful » Wed Aug 12, 2015 6:39 am

More "recruits". Who knew that U.S. flag officers were so easily bought off?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

And a turncoat recruit. Obama must have something on this guy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/world ... -deal.html
User avatar
Voronwe_the_Faithful
Mariner

 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:53 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:27 am

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:More "recruits". Who knew that U.S. flag officers were so easily bought off?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

Aside from the fact that appeal to credibility of endorsers does not a valid argument make, allow me to point out that high-ranking has-beens can always be found for that kind of campaign. On both sides.

And a turncoat recruit. Obama must have something on this guy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/world ... -deal.html

Former nuclear advisor to President Obama supporting President Obama. Yes indeed, what are the chances?
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Wed Aug 12, 2015 11:16 pm

It seems that Team Obama's strategy is to claim that the sky will fall if the deal is rejected. John Kerry now claims that rejecting the Iran deal would destroy the US dollar's standing as the world's reserve currency. There seems to be a universal agreement between economists that Kerry is talking out of his... hat. This follows the administration's earlier pronouncements that rejecting the Iran deal would immediately lead to war, that rockets would rain on Israel (presumably because Hezbollah having more Iranian money makes them less likely to attack?), that world would blame Israel for failure of the deal (well obviously, rather than blame themselves), that the USA would find itself isolated, et cetera ad nauseum.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:25 am

Any of those is still possible.
If we can't get an agreement that we were the lead negotiators on, how does that make us look?
It reminds me of the the League of Nations debacle. We negotiated the agreement then failed to ratify. We will never know what would have happened if we had ratified it, but we know what happened when we did not.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Thu Aug 13, 2015 6:24 pm

So the other day Jeb Bush was giving a speech to some Conservative group or other, and he blamed the rise of ISIS and the chaos in Iraq on President Obama and Hillary Clinton, because apparently in the Alternate Universe inhabited by today's Republicans, that part of the world was a peaceful and stable oasis of Freedom and Prosperity back before that Black Day in January of 2009 when Obama came along to muck it all up. I, on the other hand, remember very vividly the war started by Jeb's brother, which destroyed a viciously repressive regime, but failed to create a stable successor government which created a terrible power vacuum and years of civil war which gave rise to terror groups like ISIS. And the men who started that war told us it was to stop Iraq from building a Nuclear Bomb. But it turned out they were totally wrong about that, though to be fair they always pronounced it "Nukular Bomb" so maybe we should have listened better? Anyway, now those same voices are warning us against Iran getting a bomb, and hey THIS time they really mean it and Iran is only one letter away from Iraq anyway, it was an easy mistake to make, could have happened to anyone. And once they kill this deal they WILL find a way to start a war with Iran, but I'm not falling for it this time. As George W Bush once said "Fool me Once, Shame on You. Fool me Twice. . well. . uh. . you can't fool me again!" Wisest thing he ever said.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:42 pm

Minardil wrote:So the other day Jeb Bush was giving a speech to some Conservative group or other, and he blamed the rise of ISIS and the chaos in Iraq on President Obama and Hillary Clinton, because apparently in the Alternate Universe inhabited by today's Republicans, that part of the world was a peaceful and stable oasis of Freedom and Prosperity back before that Black Day in January of 2009 when Obama came along to muck it all up. I, on the other hand, remember very vividly the war started by Jeb's brother, which destroyed a viciously repressive regime, but failed to create a stable successor government which created a terrible power vacuum and years of civil war which gave rise to terror groups like ISIS. And the men who started that war told us it was to stop Iraq from building a Nuclear Bomb. But it turned out they were totally wrong about that, though to be fair they always pronounced it "Nukular Bomb" so maybe we should have listened better? Anyway, now those same voices are warning us against Iran getting a bomb, and hey THIS time they really mean it and Iran is only one letter away from Iraq anyway, it was an easy mistake to make, could have happened to anyone. And once they kill this deal they WILL find a way to start a war with Iran, but I'm not falling for it this time. As George W Bush once said "Fool me Once, Shame on You. Fool me Twice. . well. . uh. . you can't fool me again!" Wisest thing he ever said.

So basically, it's not about Iran going nuclear, or the consequences thereof. It's about keeping the Republicans out of power, and if Iran makes a convenient ally for that purpose, then so be it.

Back to the subject matter:

Kerry admits: No automatic return of sanctions if Iran breaks arms embargo.

And here's a testimony of Dr. Robert Joseph, Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security laying out the many reasons why the Iran deal increases rather than decreases the threat of nuclear-armed Iran. An example:

(4) Failure to Prevent Breakout
Also deeply flawed is the notion of extending the breakout time from two or three months to
twelve.  Following the end of restrictions on Iran’s enrichment program, we will be in a worse
situation with an even more capable Iran, operating thousands of advanced centrifuges.  If a 2‐3
month breakout time is unacceptable today, why is it acceptable in 10‐15 years?   

Moreover, unless Iran begins breakout at a declared facility under IAEA monitoring, how will we
know when the clock begins?  Despite assertions that we will know when Iran decides to go
nuclear, our track record suggests the opposite, especially in a covert “sneak‐out” scenario.  In
the past, we were caught off guard at the timing of the first Soviet nuclear test, the first Chinese
nuclear test, and the Indian and Pakistan nuclear tests.  More recently, and more directly
related, we debated for years whether North Korea was operating a uranium enrichment
facility – a debate that ended only when Pyongyang announced that it had begun production of
highly enriched uranium for weapons and invited an American nuclear scientist to visit the site.   
Finally, even if we did know when breakout began, what response can we realistically expect to
occur?  The likelihood, based on previous experience, is that months will go by until there is an
internal U.S. consensus that a violation has taken place.  More months will go by as the
international community deliberates about how to respond.  Consider two recent examples of
how long these matters take: it took nearly four years for the IAEA Board of Governors to refer
the Iran nuclear issue to the UN Security Council and it took years for the U.S. government to
conclude that Russia had violated the INF Treaty, despite clear‐cut evidence in both cases.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby The Heretic » Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:36 am

How convenient for the Obama bootlicks to forget what Obama said about Iraq:
"It’s harder to end a war than begin one. Indeed, everything that American troops have done in Iraq -– all the fighting and all the dying, the bleeding and the building, and the training and the partnering -– all of it has led to this moment of success. Now, Iraq is not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq, with a representative government that was elected by its people."
Dec. 2011
No doubt the bootlicks were worshipfully praising Obama at the time, for his great success (while screaming at any who criticized their dear leader).
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Fri Aug 14, 2015 4:49 am

So basically, it's not about Iran going nuclear, or the consequences thereof. It's about keeping the Republicans out of power, and if Iran makes a convenient ally for that purpose, then so be it.


Sigh. No. It's not about keeping them "from power", it's about remembering how disastrously wrong they were the last time they took us to war in this region. And really, war is their only endgame here. Your arguments aren't against this deal, they are against ANY deal. And once you've killed this deal, you'll demand war as the only way to keep Iran from going nuclear. Sorry, "nukular". And once you've killed the deal you'll be right
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Fri Aug 14, 2015 7:10 am

Minardil wrote:
So basically, it's not about Iran going nuclear, or the consequences thereof. It's about keeping the Republicans out of power, and if Iran makes a convenient ally for that purpose, then so be it.


Sigh. No. It's not about keeping them "from power", it's about remembering how disastrously wrong they were the last time they took us to war in this region. And really, war is their only endgame here. Your arguments aren't against this deal, they are against ANY deal. And once you've killed this deal, you'll demand war as the only way to keep Iran from going nuclear. Sorry, "nukular". And once you've killed the deal you'll be right

Yes, yes, and you're yet to hear what a better deal should have looked like even though I've already outlined it in this thread and in the one before it, right? Mustn't forget the talking points.

I'm not against ANY deal, but I am very much against a deal struck on Iran's terms that turns a bad situation into a catastrophic one.

This is the end of American influence globally. For the USA allies, there's no longer a reason to trust the USA as a guarantor of their security. For America's enemies, there are no more reasons to fear. Nuclear non-proliferation is dead and gone; there's no way post-Obama America can persuade anyone, friend or foe, that they have no need for nuclear arms or that acquiring them carries any kind of negative consequences - after all, what are you going to do with violators? Make a deal on their terms?
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Aravar » Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:09 am

Storyteller wrote:This is the end of American influence globally. For the USA allies, there's no longer a reason to trust the USA as a guarantor of their security. For America's enemies, there are no more reasons to fear. Nuclear non-proliferation is dead and gone; there's no way post-Obama America can persuade anyone, friend or foe, that they have no need for nuclear arms or that acquiring them carries any kind of negative consequences - after all, what are you going to do with violators? Make a deal on their terms?


Hardly, America's influence in the world is not only raw military power, but also cultural and economic.

I think you are over emphasising the need for America's friend to become nuclear armed immediately. Britain and France are nuclear powers, as is Israel. Other large powers could, if push came to shove, become nuclear powers in short order. Germany and Japan spring to mind. i would not be surprised if all it took for those countries to produce nuclear weapons would be to assemble the weapon from the design. Smaller countries would fall under one or other umbrella. I doubt, for example, that Britain would allow Australia or New Zealand to fall prey to nuclear blackmail in the unlikely even that the Americans would not protect them. I cannot see a threat to Belgium. or Holland, Denmark or Austria, which would not be a threat to other European countries.

While non-proliferation is desirable, MAD still works. The Iranians know this, despite the rhetoric.
User avatar
Aravar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 8:57 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:46 pm

Aravar wrote:
Storyteller wrote:This is the end of American influence globally. For the USA allies, there's no longer a reason to trust the USA as a guarantor of their security. For America's enemies, there are no more reasons to fear. Nuclear non-proliferation is dead and gone; there's no way post-Obama America can persuade anyone, friend or foe, that they have no need for nuclear arms or that acquiring them carries any kind of negative consequences - after all, what are you going to do with violators? Make a deal on their terms?


Hardly, America's influence in the world is not only raw military power, but also cultural and economic.

America's cultural power has little practical significance, and its economic power will take a huge hit from this deal's political consequences.

I think you are over emphasising the need for America's friend to become nuclear armed immediately. Britain and France are nuclear powers, as is Israel. Other large powers could, if push came to shove, become nuclear powers in short order. Germany and Japan spring to mind. i would not be surprised if all it took for those countries to produce nuclear weapons would be to assemble the weapon from the design. Smaller countries would fall under one or other umbrella. I doubt, for example, that Britain would allow Australia or New Zealand to fall prey to nuclear blackmail in the unlikely even that the Americans would not protect them. I cannot see a threat to Belgium. or Holland, Denmark or Austria, which would not be a threat to other European countries.

While non-proliferation is desirable, MAD still works. The Iranians know this, despite the rhetoric.

I'm much less optimistic regarding things "Britain would allow" these days. The committed alliance of early Cold War days, when Western countries genuinely felt that a threat against one of them was a threat against all, is long gone. I don't see Britain getting involved in a nuclear stand-off for anybody but Britain these days.

That's before we get into Britain's capabilities to project meaningful power to the Southern hemisphere, or anywhere else, without American assistance. The Libya campaign demonstrated that without USA resupply, European armies will run out of ammo on the second week of fighting.

Belgium won't go nuclear, you're right. But South Korea has all the reasons to go nuclear now that it's been demonstrated that military alliance with the USA can no longer be relied upon as anyone's guarantor of security. They're living next door to a certifiably mad nuclear power, after all. The Philippines and Vietnam will need nukes to keep China's territorial ambitions in check. Saudi Arabia will want any capabilities Iran has. Turkey and Egypt will want nukes even if there is no immediate security reasons to have them, simply to retain the status of dominant military powers in the region. Even Myanmar has a nuclear program in the works, and there simply isn't a whole lot of reasons to stop at civilian applications anymore.

MAD worked in a world with very specific conditions, both geopolitical and psychological. Two clearly defined camps, divided by an immutable zero-sum ideological conflict, mutually traumatized by the World War II casualties count and the relatively fresh memory of Hiroshima. It won't work in a chaotic and fluid Hobbesian mess in which a multitude of permanent low-level conflicts can end up a local nuclear war at any moment. The 1960-s Britain would nuke the USSR without hesitation if a Soviet bomb dropped on New York or Paris. But would the 2015 Britain attack India with nuclear missiles were India to nuke Islamabad? Hardly. Would France get involved in MAD-style automatic nuclear response if the Philippines gets into a naval war with China and ends up dropping a nuclear bomb on a Chinese Navy carrier group? These are simply not realistic responses in a modern situation. The major powers' readiness to initiate a catastrophic response on that level without (or even with) immediate and equally catastrophic threat to their homeland simply isn't there.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Aravar » Wed Aug 19, 2015 7:32 am

I chose Australia and New Zealand for a reason. We would not need to go to the Southern Hemisphere (by which I assume you mean Oceania) to protect them from nuclear blackmail.

You are, right though that there would be no involvement in a Pakistan-India exchange. However, IMO MAD is working there, and has done for years, as both are already nuclear powers.
User avatar
Aravar
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2002 8:57 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:13 am

Gee, Story, I must have missed the elements of a "better deal". Could you be induced to cut and paste the elements, here?

Of course, if the you have now seen the problems and do not want to highlight them, you could always rationalize some reason not to repeat them.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:30 am

portia wrote:Gee, Story, I must have missed the elements of a "better deal". Could you be induced to cut and paste the elements, here?

Of course, if the you have now seen the problems and do not want to highlight them, you could always rationalize some reason not to repeat them.

Two posts upwards. I'll copy and paste... if your mouse wheel is broken :)
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Jnyusa » Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:45 am

Storyteller wrote:It won't work in a chaotic and fluid Hobbesian mess in which a multitude of permanent low-level conflicts can end up a local nuclear war at any moment.


However I see us bearing that kind of risk with or without the Iran deal. It is possible to buy nuclear weapons piecemeal without having a nuclear program, and some evidence exists that Syria, Saudi, and Egypt have already done so ... or at least have gone shopping. Some of the former stans have retained covert nuclear weapons, you can be sure of it - arguably useless without a delivery system but not without conversion/resale value.

Actually, the more I think about this deal the more I wonder whether it makes any difference at all to military standoffs (real or potential) in the middle east because of the signal failure of containment that has gone before it.

Whether MAD works ... well, it does until it doesn't. All it takes is one crazy dictator/oligarchy indifferent to consequences in this present, material world, and willing to slaughter its own citizens along with its enemies. I can think of a couple that fill that bill. It may be that the die is already cast.
User avatar
Jnyusa
Mariner

 
Posts: 5934
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:24 pm
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:57 am

Aravar wrote:You are, right though that there would be no involvement in a Pakistan-India exchange. However, IMO MAD is working there, and has done for years, as both are already nuclear powers.

That's only true so long as Pakistan's current regime is not replaced by the Taliban or ISIS - style leadership, which is not at all unlikely.

Nuclear-armed, Islamic radical- controlled Turkey is a very likely scenario in the next 20 years, too.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Minardil » Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:01 pm

Storyteller wrote:
portia wrote:Gee, Story, I must have missed the elements of a "better deal". Could you be induced to cut and paste the elements, here?

Of course, if the you have now seen the problems and do not want to highlight them, you could always rationalize some reason not to repeat them.

Two posts upwards. I'll copy and paste... if your mouse wheel is broken :)



Please do, because neither of your previous two posts include any discernible details as to what a "better deal" might look like. Just to be clear, when we ask for details as to what you think might make the deal better, we are looking for details on what might make the deal better.

As to your other comments, no, I am not particularly concerned about trying to keep the Republicans "out of power", as you put it. Based on their current crop of Presidential candidates, they seem pretty intent on keeping themselves out of power all on their own, they don't need MY help ruining their chances to win the White House. Just this morning, their current front runner said that he doesn't believe that the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment grants Birthright Citizenship to anyone born here in the States. It does, btw, and quite clearly, but in their zeal to out-crazy each other on the issue of Illegal Immigration, this candidate has gone beyond calls to amend the Constitution to repeal birthright citizenship, and has moved on to the bizarre position that he doesn't need to change the USC because it doesn't really say what it says. This was The Donald, if you haven't guessed, who's other pronouncements on the subject include claims that most illegal immigrants are rapists and drug dealers ("Someone's doing the raping", he says), that the government of Mexico is sending these rapists here deliberately, that he will prevent new illegal immigrants by building a giant wall AND he'll get Mexico to pay for it, and that he'll reduce the current population of illegals by deporting all 12 million of them, but then he'll let "some of the good ones back in". He provides no details whatsoever regarding how he will accomplish these goals (not providing details is a Republican thing, these days), but I would imagine he might start by deporting his own employees, because Trump owns hotels and golf courses, which means he employs lots of people who clean bathrooms, change bed linens, and mow grass, and anyone who knows anything about labor in this country knows that those jobs are often filled by non-English speakers with questionable residency papers. So, yeah, I'm not worried about a Republican White House at the moment, though the election is a long way away, things could certainly change.

As for me following the Democratic Party Line these days, well the Republicans aren't leaving me much choice. Apart from their lunacy on immigration, their other main issues include fighting against marriage equality with the bizarro-world argument that Christians are being oppressed if they can't discriminate against Gay people; ignoring the science of Climate Change ( them being against Evolution is just silly and a little quaint, Climate Change Denial has real-world consequences), and for some reason demanding that crazy rednecks be allowed to openly carry military style "assualt" weapons with them everywhere they go, like into Churches and restaurants. That's just a sampling of how far off the rails they have gone. So while I used to argue against the Leftist Idiots who suffered from Bush Derangement Disorder even though I sided with them on many political issues, It shouldn't be surprising that now I argue against people like you who have been infected with Obama Opposition Obsession and Hatred Syndrome.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9944
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Wed Aug 19, 2015 10:27 pm

Alright, reposting for all those with a broken mouse wheel- the details of how I think the Iran deal should have looked like!

Storyteller wrote:As for how a better deal would look like- that's pretty obvious. The model to follow should not have been the negotiations with North Korea, but the disarmament of Libya. Those anywhere, anytime inspections that Obama promised over and over again until revealing that they were never on the table? Should have been on the table. Fordow and other fortified underground nuclear facilities should have been demolished, whatever nuclear research is left should have remained on the surface. Iran should never have been allowed several times more working centrifuges than Pakistan had when it went nuclear. Americans should never have been excluded from the ranks of inspectors allowed to take part in the verification process (the current deal limits the nationalities of inspectors strictly to countries who have diplomatic relations with Iran). Sanctions relief should never have been as broad, should never have included removing limits on the sale of weapons to Iran, certainly not air-to-air systems and ballistic missiles. And the whole thing should have been tied to concrete changes in Iran's policy regarding Syria and to the end of financing and arming of dangerous and disruptive Shi'ite proxy armies all over the region. THAT would be a good deal.

Would the deal be unfavorable to Iran? Sure. They would be paying the price for re-joining the international community, rather than doing the world a favor by doing so and getting paid handsomely for it. Libya's Ghaddafi saw such a move as worthwhile. Would Iran have agreed to it? Maybe not, in which case the right way would be cranking the sanctions up until they do. Then again, agreements on unfavorable terms are nothing new in the world's political history and for the most part didn't turn out too badly. Plenty of countries at various points in history signed deals up to and including unconditional surrender.
Last edited by Storyteller on Wed Aug 19, 2015 10:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby Storyteller » Wed Aug 19, 2015 10:36 pm

Confirmed: IAEA side deal will allow Iran to investigate itself

VIENNA (AP) — Iran, in an unusual arrangement, will be allowed to use its own experts to inspect a site it allegedly used to develop nuclear arms under a secret agreement with the UN agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press.

The revelation is sure to roil American and Israeli critics of the main Iran deal signed by the US, Iran and five world powers in July. Those critics have complained that the deal is built on trust of the Iranians, a claim the US has denied.

The investigation of the Parchin nuclear site by the International Atomic Energy Agency is linked to a broader probe of allegations that Iran has worked on atomic weapons. That investigation is part of the overarching nuclear deal.

The Parchin deal is a separate, side agreement worked out between the IAEA and Iran. The United States and the five other world powers that signed the Iran nuclear deal were not party to this agreement but were briefed on it by the IAEA and endorsed it as part of the larger package.

Without divulging its contents, the Obama administration has described the document as nothing more than a routine technical arrangement between Iran and the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency on the particulars of inspecting the site.

Any IAEA member country must give the agency some insight into its nuclear program. Some countries are required to do no more than give a yearly accounting of the nuclear material they possess. But nations— like Iran — suspected of possible proliferation are under greater scrutiny that can include stringent inspections.

But the agreement diverges from normal inspection procedures between the IAEA and a member country by essentially ceding the agency’s investigative authority to Iran. It allows Tehran to employ its own experts and equipment in the search for evidence for activities that it has consistently denied — trying to develop nuclear weapons.


Evidence of that concession, as outlined in the document, is sure to increase pressure from US congressional opponents as they review the July 14 Iran nuclear deal and vote on a resolution of disapproval in early September. If the resolution passed and President Barack Obama vetoed it, opponents would need a two-thirds majority to override it. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, has suggested opponents will likely lose.

The White House has denied claims by critics that a secret “side deal” favorable to Tehran exists. US Secretary of State John Kerry has said the Parchin document is like other routine arrangements between the agency and individual IAEA member nations, while IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told Republican senators last week that he is obligated to keep the document confidential.

Kerry, however, acknowledged last month that neither he nor any members of the administration had actually had access to the agreement itself.

“We are aware of what the basics of it are,” he asserted, adding that the agreement “is not shared with the world, but we do get briefed on it.”

Republican critics are bound to harshly criticize any document that cedes to Iran the right to look for the very nuclear wrongdoing that it has denied committing. Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he can think of no instance where a country being probed was allowed to do its own investigation.

Iran has refused access to Parchin for years and has denied any interest in — or work on — nuclear weapons. Based on US, Israeli and other intelligence and its own research, the IAEA suspects that the Islamic Republic may have experimented with high-explosive detonators for nuclear arms at that military facility and other weapons-related work elsewhere.

The IAEA has repeatedly cited evidence, based on satellite images, of possible attempts to sanitize the site since the alleged work stopped more than a decade ago.

The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn’t differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he isn’t authorized to discuss the issue.

It is labeled “separate arrangement II,” indicating there is another confidential agreement between Iran and the IAEA governing the agency’s probe of the nuclear weapons allegations.

The document suggests that instead of carrying out their own probe, IAEA staff will be reduced to monitoring Iranian personnel as these inspect the Parchin site.

Iran will provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, “taking into account military concerns.”

That wording suggests that — beyond being barred from physically visiting the site — the agency won’t even get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance.


‘Iran’s authenticated equipment’

IAEA experts would normally take environmental samples for evidence of any weapons development work, but the agreement stipulates that Iranian technicians will do the sampling.

The sampling is also limited to only seven samples inside the building where the experiments allegedly took place. Additional ones will be allowed only outside of the Parchin site, in an area still to be determined.

“Activities will be carried out using Iran’s authenticated equipment consistent with technical specifications provided by the agency,” the agreement says. While the document says that the IAEA “will ensure the technical authenticity” of Iran’s inspection, it does not say how.

The draft is unsigned but the signatory for Iran is listed as Ali Hoseini Tash, deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council for Strategic Affairs instead of an official of Iran’s nuclear agency. That reflects the significance Tehran attaches to the agreement.

Iranian diplomats in Vienna were unavailable for comment, while IAEA spokesman Serge Gas said the agency had no immediate comment.

The main focus of the July 14 deal between Iran and six world powers is curbing Iran’s present nuclear program that could be used to make weapons. But a subsidiary element obligates Tehran to cooperate with the IAEA in its probe of the allegations.

The investigation has been essentially deadlocked for years, with Tehran asserting the allegations are based on false intelligence from the US, Israel and other adversaries. But Iran and the UN agency agreed last month to wrap up the investigation by December, when the IAEA plans to issue a final assessment on the allegations.

Both Iran and the IAEA were upbeat when announcing the agreement last month. But Western diplomats from IAEA member nations who are familiar with the probe are doubtful that Tehran will diverge from claiming that all its nuclear activities are — and were — peaceful, despite what they say is evidence to the contrary.

They say the agency will be able to report in December. But that assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal because chances are slim that Iran will present all the evidence the agency wants or give it the total freedom of movement it needs to follow up the allegations.

Still, the report is expected to be approved by the IAEA’s board, which includes the United States and other powerful nations that negotiated the July 14 agreement. They do not want to upend their July 14 deal, and will see the December report as closing the books on the issue.

Senate Appropriations Committee subcommittee chairman Lindsay Graham, a Republican presidential hopeful, last week asked for “any and all copies of side agreements between Iran and the IAEA associated with the Iran nuclear deal.” He threatened to cut off US funding for the UN agency otherwise.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Re: The Iran deal

Postby portia » Sat Aug 22, 2015 9:16 am

Storyteller wrote:Alright, reposting for all those with a broken mouse wheel- the details of how I think the Iran deal should have looked like!

Storyteller wrote:As for how a better deal would look like- that's pretty obvious. The model to follow should not have been the negotiations with North Korea, but the disarmament of Libya. Those anywhere, anytime inspections that Obama promised over and over again until revealing that they were never on the table? Should have been on the table. Fordow and other fortified underground nuclear facilities should have been demolished, whatever nuclear research is left should have remained on the surface. Iran should never have been allowed several times more working centrifuges than Pakistan had when it went nuclear. Americans should never have been excluded from the ranks of inspectors allowed to take part in the verification process (the current deal limits the nationalities of inspectors strictly to countries who have diplomatic relations with Iran). Sanctions relief should never have been as broad, should never have included removing limits on the sale of weapons to Iran, certainly not air-to-air systems and ballistic missiles. And the whole thing should have been tied to concrete changes in Iran's policy regarding Syria and to the end of financing and arming of dangerous and disruptive Shi'ite proxy armies all over the region. THAT would be a good deal.

Would the deal be unfavorable to Iran? Sure. They would be paying the price for re-joining the international community, rather than doing the world a favor by doing so and getting paid handsomely for it. Libya's Ghaddafi saw such a move as worthwhile. Would Iran have agreed to it? Maybe not, in which case the right way would be cranking the sanctions up until they do. Then again, agreements on unfavorable terms are nothing new in the world's political history and for the most part didn't turn out too badly. Plenty of countries at various points in history signed deals up to and including unconditional surrender.


If you think that Iran would have agreed, I think you are mistaken. Without an agreement with Iran, there is no agreement.
Last edited by portia on Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests