Did the Iran Nuclear deal just become the biggest joke on the face of the planet?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ActionableMango, Aug 20, 2015.

  1. ActionableMango macrumors 604

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #1
    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a9f4...ve-un-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site

    Highlights:
    • Iran has denied access to the Parchin site for years. US intelligence, Israeli intelligence, "other" intelligence, and the IAEA's own investigation point to the Parchin site as a location for working on components of nuclear weapons.
    • Under the terms of the deal, Iran will be allowed to limit access to the Parchin site to only Iranian inspectors instead of the normal international inspectors. Olli Heinonen, who was in charge of the Iran probe as deputy IAEA director general from 2005 to 2010, said he could think of no similar concession with any other country.
    • The Iranian inspections will prove compliance by taking their own pictures and video on site, and submitting this evidence to the IAEA. Futhermore, they will be allowed to avoid taking pictures and video of any areas that they deem to be of military importance.
    I've been supportive of the deal. I thought the Congressional/Neten-yahoo end run was embarrassing. But now I feel like a duped. I don't see how this deal is in any way defensible. Obama himself said that "strict verification is crucial". Someone explain how this is strict verification.

    "House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi shrugged off the revelation." I would prefer if she would explain how this isn't the biggest loophole in the history of loopholes.
     
  2. lazard macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    #2
    It is a joke. Letting Iran self inspect their facilities. Failing to negotiate the release of the American prisoners in Iran as part of the deal because Kerry didn't want to "complicate things". Trump is right, the US has horrible negotiators.
     
  3. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #3
    Would you rather bomb them into oblivion? because we all know how well that worked in Iraq.

    It's amazing how we don't ever think that another nation could not have a change in leaderhsip or government as we do. And if you also recall, this isn't just an American only deal. Russia and china also have equal stake in this, so if we only start to think about us and us only, the whole deal would have fallen apart.

    Trump isn't right, because he isn't privy to any of the issues going on; his statement is more of a joke.

    BL.
     
  4. maxsix Suspended

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #4
    Not a joke at all, it's bloody risky.

    Yet it does a wonderful job of neutering a once great country that was strong and able to lead.

    Now meek and quick to genuflect in fear and weakness, it's in desperate need of a leader, not a submissive apologist.
     
  5. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #5
    and might has never made right. Case in point: Adolf Hitler.

    BL.
     
  6. maxsix Suspended

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #6
    Keep reminding yourself that a beheading doesn't hurt... :eek:
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    Look Parchin is a giant military base so inspectors can't reasonably be allowed in the whole thing.

    That said I can't see us, China or Russia agreeing to go back to sanctions, for us all its a done deal. See e.g. this. And besides the IAEA is happy with the access (another source).
     
  8. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #8
    I don't want anyone else/when I think of you I inspect myself. :D
     
  9. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #9
    It would seem that you need to be reminded of how colossal a flop the invasion of Iraq was. Not only did we not find what we were looking for... On account of the fact that they never existed... But it only lead to more violence and chaos in the region!
     
  10. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #10
    Iran had to have hated speaking with guant, funerial and equine-countenenced John Kerry. Had they kept sending Kerry, the negotiation would have gone in our favor.

    Unfortunately, the Obama administration was so invested in closing a deal while Obama is still president, that they lost before even entering the room.
     
  11. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #11
    Which country are you talking about?
     
  12. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #12
    You want to know what is really a joke?

    Its people pretending they understand the first thing about the design, testing and building of nuclear weapons getting up on their hind legs to splutter their outrage. Being led down the garden path by the lackeys and running dogs of Bibi Netanyahu and his useful idiots in the Republican Party.

    What was Iran doing at Parchin? Most probably it was early-stage hydrodynamic testing. For the most part testing that was conducted back in the late 1990s. Which is why its busy cleaning the site up now.

    But rest assured of one thing: If the idiots and warmongers in Israel and the US Congress somehow manage to derail this deal. If they succeed in forcing Iran into the role of a totally-uninspected pariah state. They next round of nuclear testing Iran conducts won't be hydrodynamic shots at Parchin.

    It'll be a full-scale underground blast.

    And then you will really have something to cry over.
     
  13. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #13
    I’ll tell you what’s really a joke. A governing body of the US with the temerity to enter into a deal concerning nuclear development with country that chants, “Death to America” and “Wiping Israel off the map.”
     
  14. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #14
    And what of the ignorance in the fact that we are dealing with a different government and administration to the previous one, who supported and advocated actions referenced in those aforementioned chants?

    In short, like with a different POTUS, we are dealing with a different political leader in Iran.

    On a related note, I see that everyone against this is so up in arms in relation to not being susceptible to change, that they failed to notice that with such progress in diplomacy that the UK and Iran are reopening their respective embassies in London and Tehran, further signalling a thawing of relations between Iran and the western world.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34013184
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/15/us-iran-nuclear-britain-idUSKCN0PP1D820150715
    http://news.sky.com/story/1538984/uk-to-reopen-embassy-in-tehran-sources

    I'd say the joke is on the naysayers and people here who refuse to open their minds.

    BL.
     
  15. mgguy macrumors 6502

    mgguy

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2006
    #15
    The goal shouldn't have been just to get a deal, but rather to get a good deal (one that ensures Iran does not develop a nuclear bomb). Allowing Iran to self-monitor their sites is not a good deal, and hence the agreement proposal should be rejected.
     
  16. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #16
    Agreed. Obama wanted a deal, any deal. So that he has something more to his legacy than the list of failures.
     
  17. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #17
  18. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #18
    Lets just think this through, shall we?

    How many international nuclear inspectors/monitors are in Iran right now?

    The answer to that question is: Zero. So, in effect, Iran is already "self monitoring"

    Question #2: If the deal is rejected, how many international nuclear inspectors/monitors would be working in Iran?

    The answer to that question is: Zero (Notice a trend here?) So Iran would get to continue (presumably in perpetuity) "self-monitoring."

    With the deal, hundreds of highly trained nuclear inspectors will gain unprecedented access to Iran's nuclear sites. Iran will destroy, decommission, or ship out hundreds of tonnes of nuclear material.

    Without the deal, how much enriched uranium will Iran lose?

    Once again, the answer is: Zero

    Hence, unless you can come up with a plausible reason to explain why having hundreds of highly trained and experienced international nuclear inspectors is somehow worse than the alternative (i.e. zero) then I think your arguments are thoroughly unconvincing.
     
  19. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #19

    To sum up, a crap deal is better than no deal?
     
  20. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #20
    You mean something that they are already doing NOW?

    Nor the fact that they would always be 12 - 18 months behind the production of any nuclear weapon, in which if they did, we'd slap all sanctions back on them and then some?

    I'll leave it up to @shahin90 to summarize it for Iran internally:

    http://forums.macrumors.com/threads...-nuclear-program.1900567/page-2#post-21594113

    @vrDrew already answered everything else, as it was already explained in a previous thread. But you have to love how the fearmongers tend to rehash the same thing over and over so they can complain about what already has been debunked.

    BL.
     
  21. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #21
    As I've said before, it might not be the best deal one could hope for, but it's good enough, and does get the job done.

    That best deal that would please the Republican base is probably unobtainable anyway, since they tend to forget that there's another country involved looking out for its own best interests.

    And in the end, if Iran renegs on it, we lose absolutely nothing. But they, on the other hand, will end up looking immediately suspicious in front of the Western world, who will then start preparing accordingly for that next step.

    So we gain plenty with its success, lose nothing with its failure. What's the problem again?
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    I don't think the other parties to the deal would have considered that acceptable.

    Oh for gods sake, plenty of countries have dodgy human rights records.
     
  23. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #23
    And in what way and manner has Iran deserved the world's trust, compared to it's decades long behavior of acts instigating mistrust?
     
  24. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #24
    It's not a joke to the Iranian people that don't have to deal with sanctions any longer. Most Iranians I've spoke with appreciate America for that. Whether that gratitude lasts, who knows?

    Iran is already worrying folks with possibly buying Russian missile launchers. Which doesn't violate the deal. (So I've heard).
     
  25. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #25
    Including quite a few allies of the United States.
     

Share This Page