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

[Sunni Man]

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

This seems to be a very balanced and thought out assessment of the Iranian nuclear deal.

Opinion: Iran deal a risk worth taking - CNN.com

 

[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.

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

Pro islamists don't want to prevent Iran from developing a nuke, they want to help them do it. Then trust that they will only use it in their own defense.

Are you willing to trust Iran that far?

 

[Amelia]

Here's a glowing article which acknowledges some potential pitfalls.

Secret Diplomacy that Worked | David Ignatius

It speaks of "unprecedented daily inspection of [Iran's] once-covert facilities at Natanz and Fordow".

Where are the facilities which Iran has excluded from inspection, where some fear Iran could still make advancements toward nuclear weapons?

 

[R.C. Christian]

Depends on your perspective. If you hate WWIII then it's a win. If you love American dominance it's a major loss. If you're an Israel lover or other kind of war mongering sociopath then you're probably having a bad week because you know it's really scary when a signatory of the NPT enriches uranium to a whopping 20%!

 

[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.

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

I would like an answer to both questions. It seems to me that short of a military conflict, Iran is going to get a nuke.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Puuhlease.

The only way they'll "get a nuke" is if Israel and their Sunni terrorist dogs attack Iran. Guaranteed nuke in short order and I'd back them 100%.

 

[Amelia]

A lot of history to compare:

Bret Stephens: Worse Than Munich - WSJ.com

 

[Sunni Man]

A lot of history to compare:

Bret Stephens: Worse Than Munich - WSJ.com

The whole article is quite a stretch of the imagination. .

 

[BobPlumb]

Puuhlease.

The only way they'll "get a nuke" is if Israel and their Sunni terrorist dogs attack Iran. Guaranteed nuke in short order and I'd back them 100%.

I had to read that about 10 times before I understood what you are saying.

 

[Katzndogz]

Whether it is a win for obama and the democrats is entirely up to Iran.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Whether it is a win for obama and the democrats is entirely up to Iran.

Iran will pursue nuclear weapons. This will take pressure off as sanctions are lifted, allowing the program to move more swiftly.

Obama remains an utter fool.

 

[Trajan]

despite the title of the article, I don't know what/whom(?) to believe....here;

Iran and Western nations including the United States came to an agreement on the framework for an interim deal late Saturday night in Geneva. The deal has yet to be implemented

The White House released a multi-page fact sheet containing details of the draft agreement shortly after the deal was announced.

However, Iranian foreign ministry official on Tuesday rejected the White House’s version of the deal as “invalid” and accused Washington of releasing a factually inaccurate primer that misleads the American public.

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham told the Iranian press on Tuesday.

Afkham and officials said that the White House has “modified” key details of the deal and released their own version of the agreement.

Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, is fully recognized under the draft released by Tehran.

“This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein,” the agreement reads, according to a copy released to Iranian state-run media.

more at-

Iran: White House Lying About Details of Nuke Deal | Washington Free Beacon

 

[Trajan]

A lot of history to compare:

Bret Stephens: Worse Than Munich - WSJ.com

The whole article is quite a stretch of the imagination. .

maybe, why do you think so?

 

[Sunni Man]

A lot of history to compare:

Bret Stephens: Worse Than Munich - WSJ.com

The whole article is quite a stretch of the imagination. .

maybe, why do you think so?

Because it reads like a hyperventilating neocon fantasy on steroids. .

I suggest you take a look at this fairly balanced opinion piece that seems to cover all of the bases.. .

Opinion: Iran deal a risk worth taking - CNN.com

 

[Trajan]

The whole article is quite a stretch of the imagination. .

maybe, why do you think so?

Because it reads like a hyperventilating neocon fantasy on steroids. .

I suggest you take a look at this fairly balanced opinion piece that seems to cover all of the bases.. .

Opinion: Iran deal a risk worth taking - CNN.com

well, I was hoping for some literal example..of why.

I'll go first then-

from your piece-

For the Obama administration, the deal offers multiple advantages. For the near term, at least, it is a rare diplomatic triumph. It arguably validates its program of sanctions by suggesting that the economic measures drove the Iranians to the negotiating table.


the political rah rahing aside,( which seems to presuppose its a diplomatic triumph, I think many dems in the senate would disagree) what did 'driving ' the Iranians to the table yield.....exactly?

 

[Trajan]

cdz folks, please, stay on topic..thx.

 

[Trajan]

so, word on the arab street is, obama had this in mind when he pulled back from the red line in syria, iran does not, want to lose its reach and influence in syria/lebanon, that is their second biggest worry........so, back channle they started leading us back to the table, via Russian shoves in that direction too....

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't know if this deal is good or not. What is the alternative, attacking Iran and starting a war? Is there any stopping Iran from developing nukes short of attacking them?

Will there soon be a big mushroom cloud over Israel?

Therein lies the issue here that no one seems to want to address. Is this deal good? I don’t know and I don’t think anyone will really know for another 6 months when we see the end results but the honest truth is that the sanctions are not working. Iran is still seeking a nuke and they are going to get it with or without sanctions. Why would we want to follow the path that has proven to not work is beyond me.

If we don’t want Iran to get nukes the only solution is likely to be outright war. Then we need to ask, what is worse? A nuclear Iran or a longer more protracted and worse war than Iraq could have ever dreamed of being. For me war is a non-option so I think that we will need to fact the simple fact that Iran will be a nuclear nation at some point. It is not the best of circumstances but it is the best that we seem to be able to get.

 

[FA_Q2]

Iran will have a nuke before we know it.....

And you can blame our government for it........


Unless Israel stops them.........

Why can you blame our government for it? Have we handed them the bomb? Have we given them the materials to go ahead? Have we stated that we back a nuclear Iran?

No, we have done none of these. Instead we have threatened, saber rattled and plunged their economy into a deep and dark hole all in effort to stop a nuclear Iran from becoming a possibility. Guess what. It is failing. If Iran gets a nuke the American government is not to blame – they are. The same way that they are to blame for the hardships that have befallen them for the pursuit of that goal. The only thing that is on us is how we deal with that reality.

 

[Lipush]

Depends on your perspective. If you hate WWIII then it's a win. If you love American dominance it's a major loss. If you're an Israel lover or other kind of war mongering sociopath then you're probably having a bad week because you know it's really scary when a signatory of the NPT enriches uranium to a whopping 20%!

The Ayatollah regime gave an owth for the method of "Death to America".

How is staying on guard causing WW3? If anything it is the other way around.

Those who are so desparate to make a deal, even a bad one, are the ones pushing for war.