Is the Iran deal a real win -- or a nominal one?

[Statistikhengst]

Iran wanted economic sanctions lifted. They got that, albeit, conditionally. I do not trust this situation or Iran. Moreover, "The terms of the comprehensive agreement have yet to be defined, but it is suggested that that agreement will itself have an expiration date,” said Ray Takeyh, a former State Department and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “It would be good if the comprehensive agreement was more final".

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/w...ns-nuclear-program-still-lies-ahead.html?_r=0

There is so much more that needs to be done and this announcement is more wishful thinking than reality.

I concur with you. This treaty is still in the Kindergarten phase - but we have seen worse treaties end up working. So, I will reserve judgement for a while.

My only problem is that the OP injects Bolton and the Weekly Standard into this - both of which are EXTREME Right-Wing publications.

For at least 20 years, we have been hearing the Iran is just some many months, weeks or even days away from a nuke, and yet, it has none.

There may be aspects of this treaty that no one is seeing yet. Alone the fact that Iran is willing to engage in a treaty is and of itself somewhat historical.

 

[Katzndogz]

Iran is willing to engage in a treaty that's wholly on their side.

 

[Amelia]

Iran wanted economic sanctions lifted. They got that, albeit, conditionally. I do not trust this situation or Iran. Moreover, "The terms of the comprehensive agreement have yet to be defined, but it is suggested that that agreement will itself have an expiration date,” said Ray Takeyh, a former State Department and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “It would be good if the comprehensive agreement was more final".

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/w...ns-nuclear-program-still-lies-ahead.html?_r=0

There is so much more that needs to be done and this announcement is more wishful thinking than reality.

I concur with you. This treaty is still in the Kindergarten phase - but we have seen worse treaties end up working. So, I will reserve judgement for a while.

My only problem is that the OP injects Bolton and the Weekly Standard into this - both of which are EXTREME Right-Wing publications.

For at least 20 years, we have been hearing the Iran is just some many months, weeks or even days away from a nuke, and yet, it has none.

There may be aspects of this treaty that no one is seeing yet. Alone the fact that Iran is willing to engage in a treaty is and of itself somewhat historical.

Same invitation to you as to Sunni Man -- would love to see links you consider helpful.

 

[High_Gravity]

I heard positives from John Kerry this morning on This Week. The most obvious one was that sanctions haven't stopped Iran from exploding their number of centrifuges from about 164 in 2003 to 19,000 now, and they seem to be saying that this plan will stop that growth. And there will be daily inspections -- though I heard another source say the scope of those daily inspections was watered down from an earlier stated ideal.

Here's a blog from John Bolton suggesting it was called a win because Obama couldn't handle another loss in his foreign policy column.

Abject Surrender by the United States | The Weekly Standard

On This Week the panel, left and right, basically agreed that before this agreement Iran was about one to two months away from being able to make a big push toward weaponization, and now they'll be about two to four months away from being able to make that push.

My plan is to stay open-minded about this, but if Israel and Saudi Arabia are concerned I'm concerned.

I welcome opinions from across the spectrum to help me understand what the issues are here.

It is a huge win...................................for Iran.

 

[Amelia]

Is Obama accusing Chuck Schumer of "tough talk and bluster"?

Obama blasts 'tough talk and bluster' of Iran deal critics

 

[Connery]

Is Obama accusing Chuck Schumer of "tough talk and bluster"?

Obama blasts 'tough talk and bluster' of Iran deal critics

From Obama: “Tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it’s not the right thing for our security.” So the right thing is to aid our enemies and lift sanctions so in a short period of time they can continue to build weapons that may be used against the US or it's interests....

 

[Sunni Man]

Is Obama accusing Chuck Schumer of "tough talk and bluster"?

Obama blasts 'tough talk and bluster' of Iran deal critics

From Obama: “Tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it’s not the right thing for our security.” So the right thing is to aid our enemies and lift sanctions so in a short period of time they can continue to build weapons that may be used against the US or it's interests....

No need to worry.

Iran doesn't possess a delivery system to threaten the U.S. with nuclear weapons. .

 

[SFC Ollie]

Is Obama accusing Chuck Schumer of "tough talk and bluster"?

Obama blasts 'tough talk and bluster' of Iran deal critics

From Obama: “Tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it’s not the right thing for our security.” So the right thing is to aid our enemies and lift sanctions so in a short period of time they can continue to build weapons that may be used against the US or it's interests....

No need to worry.

Iran doesn't possess a delivery system to threaten the U.S. with nuclear weapons. .

Um, didn't Iran launch a rocket into space? Or was that someone else? I truly forget....

But my guess is they have the tech....

 

[Trajan]

well, first- Iran is treating this like they won the world series, now to be fair that may be pabulum they are feeding their people for appearances.

BUT from what I am watching and reading, well.....

example-


Start with the fact that this "interim" accord fails to meet the terms of several United Nations resolutions, which specify no sanctions relief until Iran suspends all uranium enrichment.

Under this deal Iran gets sanctions relief, but it does not have to give up its centrifuges that enrich uranium, does not have to stop enriching, does not have to transfer control of its enrichment stockpiles, and does not have to shut down its plutonium reactor at Arak.

The President also said that "Iran has committed to halting certain levels of enrichment and neutralizing part of its stockpiles." He is referring to an Iranian pledge to oxidize its 20% enriched uranium stockpile. But this too is less than reassuring because the process can be reversed and Iran retains a capability to enrich to 5%, which used to be a threshold we didn't accept because it can easily be reconverted to 20%.

Mr. Obama said "Iran will halt work at its plutonium reactor," but Iran has only promised not to fuel the reactor even as it can continue other work at the site. That is far from dismantling what is nothing more than a bomb factory. North Korea made similar promises in a similar deal with Condoleezza Rice during the final Bush years, but it quickly returned to bomb-making.

Review & Outlook: Iran's Nuclear Triumph - WSJ.com


and look, can they be trusted? seriously? example-

2003-

Aug. 26 – IAEA inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium at Iran's Natanz nuclear plant. Iran claimed the traces came from equipment imported from another country.
Sept. 19 – President Khatami said, "We don't need atomic bombs, and based on our religious teaching, we will not pursue them...but at the same time, we want to be strong, and being strong means having knowledge and technology."
Sept. 25 – U.N. weapons inspectors found traces of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium at a second site near the capital city of Tehran. The IAEA set a deadline of Oct. 31 for Iran to prove it was not making nuclear weapons.

Timeline of Iran's Nuclear Activities | The Iran Primer

guess who was Irans Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council then?

wait for it....................Rouhani...



plus, if I recall, there was a deal on the table to move the stockpiles to Russia and give/sell them what they need for medical purposes etc?


2009-

Oct. 1 – Iran met in Geneva with permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany to discuss Iran's nuclear program. The parties outlined a proposal for Iran to ship 80 percent of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium from Natanz to Russia. The shipment would then go to France for further enrichment and fabrication of fuel rods for the Tehran Research Reactor, which produced isotopes for medical use.

Oct. 19-21 – The early October talks in Geneva were continued in Vienna with the presence of the IAEA, on the transfer of Iran’s low-enriched uranium. A consensus was reached on a draft agreement. The United States, France and Russia approved the agreement, but Iran backed down due to domestic opposition.

never happened..did it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I heard positives from John Kerry this morning on This Week. The most obvious one was that sanctions haven't stopped Iran from exploding their number of centrifuges from about 164 in 2003 to 19,000 now, and they seem to be saying that this plan will stop that growth. And there will be daily inspections -- though I heard another source say the scope of those daily inspections was watered down from an earlier stated ideal.

Here's a blog from John Bolton suggesting it was called a win because Obama couldn't handle another loss in his foreign policy column.

Abject Surrender by the United States | The Weekly Standard

On This Week the panel, left and right, basically agreed that before this agreement Iran was about one to two months away from being able to make a big push toward weaponization, and now they'll be about two to four months away from being able to make that push.

My plan is to stay open-minded about this, but if Israel and Saudi Arabia are concerned I'm concerned.

I welcome opinions from across the spectrum to help me understand what the issues are here.

It is a serious blunder. I think we just stepped over the line toward nuclear war.

Reagan lifted the specter of nuclear war - Obama brought it back.

 

[Amelia]

What will the inspectors be inspecting? I'm hearing mixed news about that. Some are saying significant areas will still be shut off from the inspectors.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This deal is a farce. Kerry and the Obama Administration abandoned Pastor Saeed Abedini. They didn't even try to negotiate for their release. He will continue to rot in an Iranian jail. In fact we gave more than we got. Iran got to choose what centrifuges inspectors could inspect, we eased sanctions on them and gave them $7 billion in aid. It's so bad that Israel and Saudi Arabia are now WORKING WITH ONE ANOTHER to prepare for an eventual confrontation with Iran. In fact, rumor has it that Congress is working to increase the sanctions in a bipartisan effort, and that they may have enough votes to override a presidential veto.

 

[Trajan]

well, Kim Jong-il fooled Clinton, he suckered bush, rouhani has suckered obama...you'd think we'd learn by now.

 

[Connery]

In looking at this "deal" prior to the agreement:If Iran were to make a weapon, it would need to continue enriching to 90 percent or higher. Iran has the technology to do this, but has not yet done so;

After the agreement, "Experts estimate that the deal, along with daily checks of the cameras installed at Iran’s facilities, could add weeks to an Iranian breakout."

Iran will receive some financial relief, but most sanctions will remain:

In return for the interim deal, the United States has agreed to provide $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief, American officials said. Of this, roughly $4.2 billion would be oil revenue that has been frozen in foreign banks;

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...st/Understanding-the-Deal-With-Iran.html?_r=0

There is more at the link but this seems like just enough that the Iranian people will get some relief which will ease the economic pressures faced by the average person. There is not so much that Iran will be able to slither around conditions these without being noticed and a loose enough where they are considered a player rather than pupet in these negotiations.

 

[Amelia]

Here's a good summary of what appears to be the party line -- using the term "party line" loosely since not all of Obama's party is on board with him -- but anyway:

....

So what did Kerry do in Geneva? He won an agreement that not only freezes Iran's nuclear-enrichment program for six months but actually rolls it back; that prevents new nuclear facilities from coming online; and that provides for unprecedented daily inspections to ensure that Iran is living up to it commitments.

Let me restate that to make it clearer: In May of next year, Iran will be further away from being able to build a bomb than it is today.

....

Eugene Robinson: The Benefits of a Deal | RealClearPolitics

So that's the claim. Is the claim grounded in reality? Is there reason to believe that in six months Iran will be further away from being able to build a bomb than it is today? The answer seems to be that this promise is illusory.

I see how it could be a good thing to give the Iranian people economic relief and a morale booster tied to something positive such as using diplomacy instead of bombs.

But what about those inspections?




Robinson says further down that, "Critics can't plausibly oppose the agreement on practical grounds."

Sorry, Mr. Robinson, if the bad I'm hearing about the inspections is true, I don't see how you can say that. What details are we missing?

 

[Avatar4321]

Im not sure it's a win of any kind.

 

[Politico]

No.

 

[BobPlumb]

I am not an Obama fan, but I still would like to know how keeping the sanctions in place would have prevented Iran from developing a nuke.

 

[Avatar4321]

I am not an Obama fan, but I still would like to know how keeping the sanctions in place would have prevented Iran from developing a nuke.

Id like to know how giving them money and letting them continue their nuclear program will prevent them from developing a nuke as well.

 

[Katzndogz]

I am not an Obama fan, but I still would like to know how keeping the sanctions in place would have prevented Iran from developing a nuke.

It wouldn't. As we know, Iran will starve their own people to build a bomb. That's why something else needed to be done. Abject surrender just wasn't it.