Landmark deal reached on Iran nuclear program

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Jul 14, 2015.

  1. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    So, is this a good deal or a bad deal. Quite frankly, I can't believe any Democrat who says it's good nor any Republican who says it's bad. Prepare yourselves for all the tough Republican candidates (Cruz, Bush, Perry, Rubio...) who want us to stand up to Iran but who don't even have the nerve to stand up to Trumplestiltskin.


    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/14/politics/iran-nuclear-deal/index.html
     
  2. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #2
    It won't make it through congress nor the senate.
     
  3. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3

    Not my understanding.

     
  4. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #4
    Congress won't approve, the pres will veto and then the scramble and negotiations will go on to over ride it.
     
  5. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #5
    Heads I win, tails you lose. :D
     
  6. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #6
    There are a number of things to keep in mind regarding this agreement with Iran.

    Republicans need to keep in mind that its not a bi-lateral agreement between just the US and Iran. It also involves France, Britain,Germany, Russia and China. If the US were to unilaterally renege on the deal, and the other five countries did not - that sort of makes any sanctions all but worthless.

    Republicans also ought to remember how we got here. It was only the imposition of much tougher sanctions - brought about by the Obama administration's ability to corral the other five partners - that put sufficient pressure on Iran to bring them to the bargaining table. France, Germany, Russia and China aren't interested in pandering to Republican primary voters in Ohio or North Carolina.

    If the deal does go bad: if the Iranians cheat or otherwise don't live up to the terms - we still have all the options we have now. There is the provision to re-impose sanctions with a simple majority (ie. we don't need Russia and China to go along) of the parties. And - if things got really threatening - we still have all the military options we presently have.

    We also have to recognize that Iran, for better or worse, is presently doing a lot of the dirty work in the fight against ISIS. I think its better for the region, and certainly for us, for Iranians to be doing any fighting on the ground.

    We also ought to remember that, at present, there are precisely zero nuclear inspectors inside Iran. Yes: Iran might be constrained by sanctions, but they are also free of any inspection or supervision. North Korea was, economically and technically, under a far more onerous sanctions burden than Iran - and they still managed to create a bomb. Another ten years of onerous sanctions and international hostility only gives Iran a stronger incentive to build a bomb. This agreement gives them every incentive not to.

    Lastly, I can think of very few instances in world history where diplomacy ended up being a worse choice than military action. We don't need any more wars in the middle east.
     
  7. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #7
    A lot of Democrats are more pro Israel than pro US just like most Republicans, and while in recent years the Republicans have made it go from being one of the most reliably bipartisan issues to a somewhat contentious one I don't think it would be too hard to get a 2/3rds majority to vote for Israel and overcome a veto.
     
  8. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #8
    Can we really trust Iran to hold to any deal or trust them to open up their country for us to check. Sure on paper it might look like roses and unicorns but is this deal practical.
     
  9. rdowns thread starter macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #9
    Only time will tell. What's the alternative?
     
  10. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #10
    I don't know if there are any viable ones.

    Is this just a feel good agreement or does it have teeth and not just dentures.
     
  11. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #11
    If they don't follow through the sanctions will go back, so at the absolute worst case this deal would delay them getting a nuclear weapon by a bit as the sanctions won't be lifted until after they have shown that they are upholding their end of the bargain, so even if they only stick with it long enough to get the sanctions lifted it will delay them a bit and the sanctions will go right back when they stop complying.

    When Sadamm ignored UN inspectors it was because he was more worried about the Iranians than the US and wanted them to think that he might still have WMDs so they wouldn't attack. Iran on the other hand doesn't have a neighboring country that they have to fear like that so if they start trying to hide things from inspectors it'll be obvious that they are up to something.
     
  12. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #12
    How many nuclear inspectors are there in Iran right now? How many on-site inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities have been conducted in the past ten years?

    The answer to both questions is zero.

    At the very least, this deal allows us to get a much better idea of what Iran is actually doing.

    Iran also has agreed to ship a large number of its centrifuges and its low-grade uranium out of the country. Thats not really something they can "cheat" on. Either they do it - or the deal is off.

    No arms control agreement is perfect. Countries can always try and cheat. But the important thing, in the long run, is that better relations between nations ends up removing the incentive for them to develop nuclear programs in the first place, and to think about using them in the second.
     
  13. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #13
    Where does our Constitution state that we may allow or disallow another nation from doing anything at all?

    Perhaps if we did not meddle everywhere, blowback would be a nonissue.
     
  14. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #14
    Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

    edit: made it a link for you.
     
  15. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #15
    This also goes the other way. As mentioned before, there isn't a doubt that Israel will lobby Congress to block this. Should it be right or just to have a foreign country have the ability to influence a sovereign nation's government to do what it wants?

    Rhetorical question/food for thought here, so you don't have to answer..

    BL.
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    Israel really is ridiculous. This should benefit their security.
     
  17. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #17
    I agree. This isn't Ahmadinejad spouting off incendiary drivel about wiping Israel off the map. This is a new person at the helm, outside of Ayatollah Khamenei, who for all intents and purposes is a figurehead. Netanyahu is not wanting to be objective in this and let the dead dog lie.

    In fact, if they look at it, they both have the common enemy in Daesh, so they better think about sitting down at the table and talking out their differences before they are reluctantly forced to fight alongside eachother.

    BL.
     
  18. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #18
    1) Jaw, jaw is always better than war, war (Winston Churchill).
    2) Ronald Reagan signed arms control treaties with the Evil Empire.
    3) The American people consider foreign policy a POTUS prerogative.

    If the neocons want to thwart this, they better be ready to explain why war with Iran is a better deal for America.
     
  19. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #19
    We need more traditional enemies. ISIS doesn't count because they don't have real bases.
     
  20. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #20
    That's what China is for.
     
  21. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #21
    China's on too even of a playing field with us. What we need are enemies we can steamroll, then pat ourselves on the back for a job well done over.
     
  22. Huntn Suspended

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #22
    After this: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration (from 2012) can you trust anything that comes out of GOP's mouths regarding this deal? There has been a conspiracy since day one to neuter Obama Policies (even with programs that the GOP would normally support), with ill regard towards the Nation. If Obama is for it, they are GUARANTEED to be against it PERIOD.
     
  23. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #23
    Republicans are criticizing this deal because it isn't perfect. And to be brutally honest - it is not a perfect deal. Iran still gets to keep its military, it doesn't address the issues of Iran's support for terrorism, and Iran still gets to keep some nuclear infrastructure.

    But a perfect deal would only be achievable if the United States had infinite power. That merely by threatening Iran (or any other country) we could bend them to our will.

    The reality, of course, is that there are definite limits on America's power. On our ability to hurt our enemies through economic means. Our ability to force our allies and other nations to do as we would wish. To inflict massive destruction without suffering casualties of our own and generating political backlash.

    Compared to a perfect deal, Obama's agreement with Iran is indeed flawed. But compared to the alternatives (do nothing or start another war in the region) - it looks pretty darned good. Boehner, Cotton, and the rest of the jokers in the Republican pack of cards know this very well. But as long as this issue is in the news, you can guarantee you'll never hear one of them say what their actual alternative might be.
     
  24. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #24
    Honestly sometimes I wonder if US policy the last decade has been a (not-so-)cleverly hatched plot to cause conflict between Sunni's and Shia...

    In any case, the agreement isn't great, but it's better than what we have.
     
  25. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #25
    It makes you wonder.. as well as some sort of collusion with Big Oil. If no conflicts were going on over there, we would see oil and gas prices back at 1994-2000 levels.

    BL.
     

Share This Page