CDZ The Iranian nuclear deal: a deeper look

[Hossfly]

Veni, vidi, vici. Concise, complete and correct. (As the Army teaches writers)

Veni, vidi, vici means "I came, I saw, I conquered", not "Concise, complete and correct"

I didn't say that. I used Napoleons statement as an example. Not only are you verbose, you lack situational awareness.

you'd hate my next essay. it is 6 pages (although it also contains much more information-I also spent more than 1.5 hrs on it and did some editing.

I would venture to say that RoccoR has more knowledge about the Mid-east and Iran than anyone here. Also, aris2chat is another good source of knowledge.

then lets try to get him in this thread!

Depends if RoccoR feels it's worth it.

 

[RoccoR]

Hossfly, PhilosphyBeforeParty, et al,

I'm here --- still reading.

v/r
R

 

[irosie91]

the "deal" is not a deal----it is a capitulation------the parameters of the "deal" are far too constrained. It should have included the terrorist activities supported by Iran----Iran's yet to exist atom bomb is not actually creating a problem right now

if you read my essay, you would know my response to that, but it appears you have not.

I read that which you optimistically call your "essay"------In fact it is an exercise in
supercilious self back patting. You do make a very interesting ASSERTION---being ----this new deal will result in LESS TERRORISM-----no doubt you mean----less Iranian backed terrorism. Wanna bet? In fact this deal will result in
MORE TERRORISM-------both Shiite and Sunni. You also assert that no person who has enough food and a nice house becomes a terrorist-----thus placing a final seal on the fact that you are clueless. I have known ---in the USA --Iranians since the mid 60s. Lots. All were intelligent and motivated
to be happy successful prosperous ----something like upper middle class americans. I was so impressed that in 1979 (being still young) I ASSERTED that this ayatoilet stuff will be ALL OVER in two years. BUT----over the years knowing lots of Iranians (I even have an Iranian relative by marriage) ----I have a deeper insight into "IRANIAN"-------Iranians are-----whether YOU want to believe it or not-----a people with an interesting ethos pertaining to BEING
IRANIAN.-----------in fact they are something like germans -----who----whether YOU want to believe it or not------are........are you ready? -------breathe evenly and slowly----------PRONE TO NATIONALISM. as in------for the sake of simplicity "WE IS THE BEST" Iranians and germans are not the only we is the best" people-----even Japanese have a "we is the best" complex I learned all about it from Iranians------not just muslim Iranians----even jewish Iranians (like my distant relative and some of my colleagues) Today's Iranians are very nationalistic and together with islam of the Shiite variety what iran is today is something like 15th century SPAIN seeking its manifest destiny----- or the BRITISH EMPIRE----doing its cosmic good deed of bringing tea to the
the brownish people of the world. Right now its big time project is TAKE MECCA------he who owns the rock -----owns the UMMAH

feel free to ask questions------you are not as smart as you think you are-----
in fact you express youself like an Iranian

 

[Josf]

Suppose a voluntary deal instead of a criminal deal is tried in time and place. An example might be the time and place when people incorporated into what they call "limited liability" were dealing voluntarily with the people in Iran when they began pumping oil out of the ground in Iran and selling that oil to buyers back in 1950 or so.

Had those people incorporated into their limited liability legal fictions dealt fairly with the Iranian people, then things might not have blown back to a point where people elected a representative who decided to nullify claims of ownership of the oil in Iran owned by those people incorporated into their limited liability legal fictions.

No criminal deals initiated by criminals, as it turns out, inspires no blowback whatsoever.

Criminal deals initiated by criminals, as it turns out, inspires blowback in various forms that run from even worse evil (compared to the initial evil), and a moral response that challenges false claims of pretentious ownership.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

the "deal" is not a deal----it is a capitulation------the parameters of the "deal" are far too constrained. It should have included the terrorist activities supported by Iran----Iran's yet to exist atom bomb is not actually creating a problem right now

if you read my essay, you would know my response to that, but it appears you have not.

I read that which you optimistically call your "essay"------In fact it is an exercise in
supercilious self back patting. You do make a very interesting ASSERTION---being ----this new deal will result in LESS TERRORISM-----no doubt you mean----less Iranian backed terrorism. Wanna bet? In fact this deal will result in
MORE TERRORISM-------both Shiite and Sunni. You also assert that no person who has enough food and a nice house becomes a terrorist-----thus placing a final seal on the fact that you are clueless. I have known ---in the USA --Iranians since the mid 60s. Lots. All were intelligent and motivated
to be happy successful prosperous ----something like upper middle class americans. I was so impressed that in 1979 (being still young) I ASSERTED that this ayatoilet stuff will be ALL OVER in two years. BUT----over the years knowing lots of Iranians (I even have an Iranian relative by marriage) ----I have a deeper insight into "IRANIAN"-------Iranians are-----whether YOU want to believe it or not-----a people with an interesting ethos pertaining to BEING
IRANIAN.-----------in fact they are something like germans -----who----whether YOU want to believe it or not------are........are you ready? -------breathe evenly and slowly----------PRONE TO NATIONALISM. as in------for the sake of simplicity "WE IS THE BEST" Iranians and germans are not the only we is the best" people-----even Japanese have a "we is the best" complex I learned all about it from Iranians------not just muslim Iranians----even jewish Iranians (like my distant relative and some of my colleagues) Today's Iranians are very nationalistic and together with islam of the Shiite variety what iran is today is something like 15th century SPAIN seeking its manifest destiny----- or the BRITISH EMPIRE----doing its cosmic good deed of bringing tea to the
the brownish people of the world. Right now its big time project is TAKE MECCA------he who owns the rock -----owns the UMMAH

feel free to ask questions------you are not as smart as you think you are-----
in fact you express youself like an Iranian

the relevant points you make here are ones I have already addressed many times. your attacks on my intelligence and knowledge of the situation are unfounded and just make you sound desperate. If you want to present a relevant argument, I am happy to talk, but all you are doing is saying that I am wrong without any sort of counterclaim. you think that you know everything about the middle east because you know a few Iranians, but you are wrong, and I would venture to say you are not as smart as you think you are.

 

[irosie91]

the "deal" is not a deal----it is a capitulation------the parameters of the "deal" are far too constrained. It should have included the terrorist activities supported by Iran----Iran's yet to exist atom bomb is not actually creating a problem right now

if you read my essay, you would know my response to that, but it appears you have not.

I read that which you optimistically call your "essay"------In fact it is an exercise in
supercilious self back patting. You do make a very interesting ASSERTION---being ----this new deal will result in LESS TERRORISM-----no doubt you mean----less Iranian backed terrorism. Wanna bet? In fact this deal will result in
MORE TERRORISM-------both Shiite and Sunni. You also assert that no person who has enough food and a nice house becomes a terrorist-----thus placing a final seal on the fact that you are clueless. I have known ---in the USA --Iranians since the mid 60s. Lots. All were intelligent and motivated
to be happy successful prosperous ----something like upper middle class americans. I was so impressed that in 1979 (being still young) I ASSERTED that this ayatoilet stuff will be ALL OVER in two years. BUT----over the years knowing lots of Iranians (I even have an Iranian relative by marriage) ----I have a deeper insight into "IRANIAN"-------Iranians are-----whether YOU want to believe it or not-----a people with an interesting ethos pertaining to BEING
IRANIAN.-----------in fact they are something like germans -----who----whether YOU want to believe it or not------are........are you ready? -------breathe evenly and slowly----------PRONE TO NATIONALISM. as in------for the sake of simplicity "WE IS THE BEST" Iranians and germans are not the only we is the best" people-----even Japanese have a "we is the best" complex I learned all about it from Iranians------not just muslim Iranians----even jewish Iranians (like my distant relative and some of my colleagues) Today's Iranians are very nationalistic and together with islam of the Shiite variety what iran is today is something like 15th century SPAIN seeking its manifest destiny----- or the BRITISH EMPIRE----doing its cosmic good deed of bringing tea to the
the brownish people of the world. Right now its big time project is TAKE MECCA------he who owns the rock -----owns the UMMAH

feel free to ask questions------you are not as smart as you think you are-----
in fact you express youself like an Iranian

the relevant points you make here are ones I have already addressed many times. your attacks on my intelligence and knowledge of the situation are unfounded and just make you sound desperate. If you want to present a relevant argument, I am happy to talk, but all you are doing is saying that I am wrong without any sort of counterclaim. you think that you know everything about the middle east because you know a few Iranians, but you are wrong, and I would venture to say you are not as smart as you think you are.

wrong again----you made very specific and UNFOUNDED assertions which I countered. ------but--it is true---not in detail. You decided that people with a clean house and food-----never become terrorists. You decided that the deal between the US and Iran WILL reduce Iranian terrorism. You were very nonspecific as to what YOU consider Iranian terrorism----and I, very simply, disagreed and still do I consider terrorism that which Iran has supported
in YEMEN for many years and now accelerating. Hezbollah in an organization FULLY funded and controlled by Iran----with plants all over the middle east.
You can ASSERT from today until tomorrow and standing on your head that Hezbollah will no longer engage in terrorism or even that it never did as many
persons who imagine themselves "liberal humanists" claim----
Iran has an agenda that it has OPENLY stated of ISLAM OF THE SHIITE VARIETY FOR THE WORLD -------you missed that fact completely---or preferred to ignore it ------or want to cover it up. It is for this reason that I considered the possibility that you are Iranian. You also ignore the reality of the Middle east----
TODAY------including the MANIACAL ambitions of ERDOGAN-----and----isis.
You delight youself with--------"if everyone eats, nobody fights" << nope

 

[I amso IR]

you have to think more deeply about the issue. the hangup many people have is that Iran funds terrorism, but in my essay I clearly explain why this deal will end that.

I'm thinking deeply.

Nobody makes a bargain with somebody that is screaming "Death To America" if you're an American.

That's too simple for the young one. You don't play poker with a cheat and a Liar.

It is also the rulers over there's culture.................You can't think on our terms of what is normal to us.

The solution has always been simple. Eliminate the threat................It always works...........When they challenged us back in the day...............IT WORKED..............They REGRETTED it when they engaged................a they backed the hell down............

Peace thru Strength works..........and sometimes you have to get brutal to make them understand it.

words cannot even express how stupid and shortsighted you sound.

If you ask any Muslim.....and you look closely at their societies....strength is the only thing that keeps them in check. Weakness only encourages them. You can't think like a Westerner....you have to think like a Muslim.

so you are one of those.

 

[RoccoR]

eagle1462010, et al,

This is (IMO) closer to the track of the discussion -- where it should be.

The Iran Nuclear Negotiations U.S. Concession After U.S. Concession

So what are the metrics to judge the outcome—to judge whether this is a good or bad deal. I think they are straightforward. Here are five:

1. Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability—the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?
2. Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?
3. Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?
4. Is the agreement effectively verifiable?
5. And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

The answer to each of these questions is NO—a reality that is becoming apparent across party lines.

(COMMENT)

Q1: Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability — the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?

A1: Even the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) does not deny any country Nuclear Weapons (NW). At best it can delay it. Under Article X each party to the NPT has the right to withdraw if it decides that the agreement jeopardizes the their individual national security interests. Any party can withdrawal at any time given a 90 day notice (3 months). Iran is no exception. Iran is not likely to accept any deal that does not have a similar escape clause. While the NPT, which entered into force in 1970 --- has been extended indefinitely (Decision 3 --- 1995 NPT Review Conference), there is a review conferences required every five years; with the last one held in last month (May 2015). The NPT is 45 years old.​

Q2: Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?

A2: This new agreement seems to prevent Iran from building a Heavy Water (HW) facility or accumulating Heavy Water for a 15 year period (2030). This only delays the production of of weapons grade plutonium based on the one technology. I'm not sure how confident we should be that other technologies will not become available in that interval. The current Arak HW Reactor is not currently fueled. Under the new agreement, Iran agrees to re-engineer the Arak Reactor such that it cannot be used to general the useable fuel rods. All spent fuel will be shipped to a disposal program outside Iran; for as long as the Arak Reactor exists. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will cut the centrifuges use by about 75% (least efficient models) and Iran will limit their enrichment process to less than 5% (3%-4% concentration of U-235). It appears the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will pickup surveillance. The language used was a "extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection." Apparently Iran has agreed to implement the additional Protocols relative to the Safeguards Agreement.​

Q3: Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?

A3: Break-out Time is related to the factors that constrain the development of plutonium at the 90% enrichment level. By reducing the number of centrifuges to about 25% of their current numbers and retaining the least efficient models; as well as preventing enrichment beyond the 5% level, the break-out period will be approximately 45 days to generate weapons grade material in the quantity required to make the first weapon after the termination of the agreement.​

Q4: Is the agreement effectively verifiable?

A4: I'm not sure the question can be answered. However, the production, logistics, storage and maintenance of a warhead is very expensive under normal security conditions. The necessary covert and clandestine activities associated with and necessary to defeat IAEA Inspection Protocols would be huge. Even in Iran, it might become cost prohibitive.​

Q5: And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

A5: "Snap-Back refers to the UN approved sanctions/embargoes mechanisms, once lifted, to be re-introduced and put back in place. As extensive as the provisions are, it might take 3-to-6 months to get a majority in place, while some --- may never get back in place.​

So how did we get into this mess? The answer is clear:

• The Administration has violated every rule of good negotiating practice—the basic tenets of negotiating 101.
• Instead of increasing pressure on Tehran through more sanctions, they relieved sanctions to, in their words, keep Iran at the table, but it was these very sanctions that brought them to the table.
• Instead of making clear to Iran that Iran needed an agreement more than we, the Administration has demonstrated just the opposite: that it is desperate for an agreement—a desperation that Iran’s negotiators have exploited to the fullest, as seen today with Iran’s last minute insistence on ending the arms embargo.
• Instead of insisting that a deadline actually means a deadline, the Administration has allowed Iran to squeeze further concessions each time the latest deadline approaches and passes.
• Most important, instead of holding the line on those key issues that would determine whether the agreement is good or bad—whether it advances our security interests or undermines them—the Administration made concession after concession.

(COMMENT)

Maybe. Certainly I know a number of knowledgeable people that would agree with some of this criticism. Having said that, the establishment of a NW Program is an expensive proposition for any nation; superpowers on down --- let alone Iran. And it is a weapons system that Iran is not likely to ever use. Any nation that would attempt to use such a weapon, or provide it to some hostile non-state actor, or a state actor supporting some radical or jihadist movement, runs the risk of being significantly harmed by one or more of the superpowers. The idea of sanctions is to induce the sanctioned party to the negotiations table and act in good faith. And importantly enough, it is the need to steer research and development in the direction of high energy commercial projects; as opposed to, weapons programs.

It is almost impossible to tell the actual motivation (political, diplomatic, militarily, economically, industrially and cultural legacy) behind the US involvement in the P5+1 (US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany) sponsorship of these negotiations. It is likely that while there are some commonalities shared in the effort, some of the parties are interested in some future advantage this might hold for them in the future.

I think (IMO) it is a bit too early to cheer or criticize the outcomes. We simply do not have enough information on the subject.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[I amso IR]

you have to think more deeply about the issue. the hangup many people have is that Iran funds terrorism, but in my essay I clearly explain why this deal will end that.

I'm thinking deeply.

Nobody makes a bargain with somebody that is screaming "Death To America" if you're an American.

That's too simple for the young one. You don't play poker with a cheat and a Liar.

It is also the rulers over there's culture.................You can't think on our terms of what is normal to us.

The solution has always been simple. Eliminate the threat................It always works...........When they challenged us back in the day...............IT WORKED..............They REGRETTED it when they engaged................a they backed the hell down............

Peace thru Strength works..........and sometimes you have to get brutal to make them understand it.

words cannot even express how stupid and shortsighted you sound.

If you ask any Muslim.....and you look closely at their societies....strength is the only thing that keeps them in check. Weakness only encourages them. You can't think like a Westerner....you have to think like a Muslim.

so you are one of those.

Hi Phil, I have been following the attempt by yourself, to control how others think. You are losing! I mentioned "brevity". There is a time to stand and fight and a time to back away. Perhaps you should shorten the next essay and pick something other than the forever topic of Philosophy. Everyone has opinions and to most, most stink. I am so IR P.S. My moniker has a little "down home", philosophic ring to it, don't you think?

 

[Josf]

"This is (IMO) closer to the track of the discussion -- where it should be."

Opinions based upon demonstrable facts are competitively more of what "should be" when the idea is to acknowledge the advantages of facts over fictions.

The idea that somehow these people making these deals are in any way representing anyone other than their own special interests, if that is the idea of "where it should be," then that opinion sure could use some demonstrating of factual evidence lending some validity to the opinion.

"Any party can withdrawal at any time given a 90 day notice (3 months). Iran is no exception."

The idea that a Federation such as The United States of America (in congress assembled) is party to a Federation of Nation States assumes that the U.S.A is a Federation, not a Nation State. That means that there are 50 Independent States voluntarily federated into United States, not one Monopoly Nation State consolidated into one involuntary "love it or leave it" Nation State.

So which is the fact in this case of this opinion by this forum member?

1. The United States of America is a working Federation of people voluntarily federated for their mutual defense.
2. The United States is itself an involuntary Nation State.

"Any party can withdrawal at any time given a 90 day notice (3 months). Iran is no exception."

That has all the window dressing needed to dress up the U.N. as if the U.N. is a federation of independent entities.

Federation, the idea, has been expressed in the past, well enough, and so here is an example:

Page 74 of Elliot's Debates Volume One and the writing of Thomas Jefferson explaining the state of the voluntary union before the people of America were ready to fight against war of aggression.

"On the other side, it was argued by J. Adams, Lee, Wythe, and others, that no gentleman had argued against the policy of the right of separation from Britain, nor had supposed it possible we should ever renew our connection; that they had only opposed its being now declared:
"That the question was not whether, by a declaration of independence, we should make ourselves what we are not; but whether we should declare a fact which already exists:
"That, as to the people or Parliament of England, we had always been independent of them, their restraints on our trade deriving efficacy from our acquiescence only, and not from any rights they possessed of imposing them; an that, so far, our connection had been federal only, and was now dissolved by the commencement of hostilities:"

The following words express similar meaning as a voluntary association is maintained as such perpetually, or at least until one party begins to resort to criminal activity.

"Any party can withdrawal at any time given a 90 day notice (3 months). Iran is no exception."

Sanctions are known in history as an act of war.

So these people with these opinions concerning these criminals causing so much destruction, with malice aforethought, upon innocent people all over the world share the idea that these criminals are not criminals?

And that is the way, in their opinion, discussions should be conducted? The idea shared is to imagine that all those dead bodies just pile up by accident?

A Different Kind of War BERGHAHN BOOKS Oxford New York Celebrating 21 Years of Independent Publishing

It does not take an unreasonable amount of reason and awareness of the facts to understand the intended harm to be done to the people of Iran as it is a routine exemplified over and over again, the most clear example being the routine done to the people of Iraq.

So how does the thinking work with this shared idea that is The Emperor's new Clothes on a "Super Power" scale? Ignore the facts because they pay less in the short term?

 

[Indofred]

You can't think like a Westerner....you have to think like a Muslim.

What about western Muslims?

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I'm thinking deeply.

Nobody makes a bargain with somebody that is screaming "Death To America" if you're an American.

That's too simple for the young one. You don't play poker with a cheat and a Liar.

It is also the rulers over there's culture.................You can't think on our terms of what is normal to us.

The solution has always been simple. Eliminate the threat................It always works...........When they challenged us back in the day...............IT WORKED..............They REGRETTED it when they engaged................a they backed the hell down............

Peace thru Strength works..........and sometimes you have to get brutal to make them understand it.

words cannot even express how stupid and shortsighted you sound.

If you ask any Muslim.....and you look closely at their societies....strength is the only thing that keeps them in check. Weakness only encourages them. You can't think like a Westerner....you have to think like a Muslim.

so you are one of those.

Hi Phil, I have been following the attempt by yourself, to control how others think. You are losing! I mentioned "brevity". There is a time to stand and fight and a time to back away. Perhaps you should shorten the next essay and pick something other than the forever topic of Philosophy. Everyone has opinions and to most, most stink. I am so IR P.S. My moniker has a little "down home", philosophic ring to it, don't you think?

"I have been following the attempt by yourself, to control how others think" some call it a debate. just because I have a separate opinion than most people here (the source of the debate) doesn't mean I am trying to control hoe they think. I am trying to win pepople over to my side, but there is a difference between that and trying to control how people think.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

eagle1462010, et al,

This is (IMO) closer to the track of the discussion -- where it should be.

The Iran Nuclear Negotiations U.S. Concession After U.S. Concession

So what are the metrics to judge the outcome—to judge whether this is a good or bad deal. I think they are straightforward. Here are five:

1. Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability—the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?
2. Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?
3. Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?
4. Is the agreement effectively verifiable?
5. And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

The answer to each of these questions is NO—a reality that is becoming apparent across party lines.

(COMMENT)

Q1: Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability — the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?

A1: Even the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) does not deny any country Nuclear Weapons (NW). At best it can delay it. Under Article X each party to the NPT has the right to withdraw if it decides that the agreement jeopardizes the their individual national security interests. Any party can withdrawal at any time given a 90 day notice (3 months). Iran is no exception. Iran is not likely to accept any deal that does not have a similar escape clause. While the NPT, which entered into force in 1970 --- has been extended indefinitely (Decision 3 --- 1995 NPT Review Conference), there is a review conferences required every five years; with the last one held in last month (May 2015). The NPT is 45 years old.​

Q2: Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?

A2: This new agreement seems to prevent Iran from building a Heavy Water (HW) facility or accumulating Heavy Water for a 15 year period (2030). This only delays the production of of weapons grade plutonium based on the one technology. I'm not sure how confident we should be that other technologies will not become available in that interval. The current Arak HW Reactor is not currently fueled. Under the new agreement, Iran agrees to re-engineer the Arak Reactor such that it cannot be used to general the useable fuel rods. All spent fuel will be shipped to a disposal program outside Iran; for as long as the Arak Reactor exists. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will cut the centrifuges use by about 75% (least efficient models) and Iran will limit their enrichment process to less than 5% (3%-4% concentration of U-235). It appears the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will pickup surveillance. The language used was a "extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection." Apparently Iran has agreed to implement the additional Protocols relative to the Safeguards Agreement.​

Q3: Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?

A3: Break-out Time is related to the factors that constrain the development of plutonium at the 90% enrichment level. By reducing the number of centrifuges to about 25% of their current numbers and retaining the least efficient models; as well as preventing enrichment beyond the 5% level, the break-out period will be approximately 45 days to generate weapons grade material in the quantity required to make the first weapon after the termination of the agreement.​

Q4: Is the agreement effectively verifiable?

A4: I'm not sure the question can be answered. However, the production, logistics, storage and maintenance of a warhead is very expensive under normal security conditions. The necessary covert and clandestine activities associated with and necessary to defeat IAEA Inspection Protocols would be huge. Even in Iran, it might become cost prohibitive.​

Q5: And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

A5: "Snap-Back refers to the UN approved sanctions/embargoes mechanisms, once lifted, to be re-introduced and put back in place. As extensive as the provisions are, it might take 3-to-6 months to get a majority in place, while some --- may never get back in place.​

So how did we get into this mess? The answer is clear:

• The Administration has violated every rule of good negotiating practice—the basic tenets of negotiating 101.
• Instead of increasing pressure on Tehran through more sanctions, they relieved sanctions to, in their words, keep Iran at the table, but it was these very sanctions that brought them to the table.
• Instead of making clear to Iran that Iran needed an agreement more than we, the Administration has demonstrated just the opposite: that it is desperate for an agreement—a desperation that Iran’s negotiators have exploited to the fullest, as seen today with Iran’s last minute insistence on ending the arms embargo.
• Instead of insisting that a deadline actually means a deadline, the Administration has allowed Iran to squeeze further concessions each time the latest deadline approaches and passes.
• Most important, instead of holding the line on those key issues that would determine whether the agreement is good or bad—whether it advances our security interests or undermines them—the Administration made concession after concession.

(COMMENT)

Maybe. Certainly I know a number of knowledgeable people that would agree with some of this criticism. Having said that, the establishment of a NW Program is an expensive proposition for any nation; superpowers on down --- let alone Iran. And it is a weapons system that Iran is not likely to ever use. Any nation that would attempt to use such a weapon, or provide it to some hostile non-state actor, or a state actor supporting some radical or jihadist movement, runs the risk of being significantly harmed by one or more of the superpowers. The idea of sanctions is to induce the sanctioned party to the negotiations table and act in good faith. And importantly enough, it is the need to steer research and development in the direction of high energy commercial projects; as opposed to, weapons programs.

It is almost impossible to tell the actual motivation (political, diplomatic, militarily, economically, industrially and cultural legacy) behind the US involvement in the P5+1 (US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany) sponsorship of these negotiations. It is likely that while there are some commonalities shared in the effort, some of the parties are interested in some future advantage this might hold for them in the future.

I think (IMO) it is a bit too early to cheer or criticize the outcomes. We simply do not have enough information on the subject.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree with most of what you say here (contrary to what many people here seem to think, I do not believe the deal will solve everything overnight), but you have not addressed one essential part of the issue: how the lifting of the sanctions affects the Iranian people. most view lifting sanctions as a sacrifice we had to make to get the parts of the deal that we wanted, but I believe that it will be helpful to the cause. Iran is not a country of religious zealots, and most Iranian citizens are eager to join the modern world. with the great economic relief this deal will bring (to the government and the people), they (many of whom are currently impoverished) will no longer be desperate, and desperation (for money, for a voice, etc.) is the most common and basic source of terrorism, and would also be the only reason to build a nuclear bomb. in addition, Iran would have a lot to lose if it built a bomb (far more than returning to its current state). its entire economy would come crashing down as foreign businesses pulled out of Iran and sanctions were put back in place. thousands, perhaps millions of people would begin protesting, approval ratings would plummet, and thing would generally be thrown into chaos, perhaps even (not likely, but it would be a possibility) a revolution.

so to summarize: Iran will have little to no reason to build a bomb after the deal, and there would be disastrous repercussions if it did.


I apologize for the excessive number of parenthesis in this response.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

eagle1462010, et al,

This is (IMO) closer to the track of the discussion -- where it should be.

The Iran Nuclear Negotiations U.S. Concession After U.S. Concession

So what are the metrics to judge the outcome—to judge whether this is a good or bad deal. I think they are straightforward. Here are five:

1. Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability—the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?
2. Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?
3. Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?
4. Is the agreement effectively verifiable?
5. And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

The answer to each of these questions is NO—a reality that is becoming apparent across party lines.

(COMMENT)

Q1: Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability — the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?

A1: Even the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) does not deny any country Nuclear Weapons (NW). At best it can delay it. Under Article X each party to the NPT has the right to withdraw if it decides that the agreement jeopardizes the their individual national security interests. Any party can withdrawal at any time given a 90 day notice (3 months). Iran is no exception. Iran is not likely to accept any deal that does not have a similar escape clause. While the NPT, which entered into force in 1970 --- has been extended indefinitely (Decision 3 --- 1995 NPT Review Conference), there is a review conferences required every five years; with the last one held in last month (May 2015). The NPT is 45 years old.​

Q2: Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?

A2: This new agreement seems to prevent Iran from building a Heavy Water (HW) facility or accumulating Heavy Water for a 15 year period (2030). This only delays the production of of weapons grade plutonium based on the one technology. I'm not sure how confident we should be that other technologies will not become available in that interval. The current Arak HW Reactor is not currently fueled. Under the new agreement, Iran agrees to re-engineer the Arak Reactor such that it cannot be used to general the useable fuel rods. All spent fuel will be shipped to a disposal program outside Iran; for as long as the Arak Reactor exists. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will cut the centrifuges use by about 75% (least efficient models) and Iran will limit their enrichment process to less than 5% (3%-4% concentration of U-235). It appears the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will pickup surveillance. The language used was a "extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection." Apparently Iran has agreed to implement the additional Protocols relative to the Safeguards Agreement.​

Q3: Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?

A3: Break-out Time is related to the factors that constrain the development of plutonium at the 90% enrichment level. By reducing the number of centrifuges to about 25% of their current numbers and retaining the least efficient models; as well as preventing enrichment beyond the 5% level, the break-out period will be approximately 45 days to generate weapons grade material in the quantity required to make the first weapon after the termination of the agreement.​

Q4: Is the agreement effectively verifiable?

A4: I'm not sure the question can be answered. However, the production, logistics, storage and maintenance of a warhead is very expensive under normal security conditions. The necessary covert and clandestine activities associated with and necessary to defeat IAEA Inspection Protocols would be huge. Even in Iran, it might become cost prohibitive.​

Q5: And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

A5: "Snap-Back refers to the UN approved sanctions/embargoes mechanisms, once lifted, to be re-introduced and put back in place. As extensive as the provisions are, it might take 3-to-6 months to get a majority in place, while some --- may never get back in place.​

So how did we get into this mess? The answer is clear:

• The Administration has violated every rule of good negotiating practice—the basic tenets of negotiating 101.
• Instead of increasing pressure on Tehran through more sanctions, they relieved sanctions to, in their words, keep Iran at the table, but it was these very sanctions that brought them to the table.
• Instead of making clear to Iran that Iran needed an agreement more than we, the Administration has demonstrated just the opposite: that it is desperate for an agreement—a desperation that Iran’s negotiators have exploited to the fullest, as seen today with Iran’s last minute insistence on ending the arms embargo.
• Instead of insisting that a deadline actually means a deadline, the Administration has allowed Iran to squeeze further concessions each time the latest deadline approaches and passes.
• Most important, instead of holding the line on those key issues that would determine whether the agreement is good or bad—whether it advances our security interests or undermines them—the Administration made concession after concession.

(COMMENT)

Maybe. Certainly I know a number of knowledgeable people that would agree with some of this criticism. Having said that, the establishment of a NW Program is an expensive proposition for any nation; superpowers on down --- let alone Iran. And it is a weapons system that Iran is not likely to ever use. Any nation that would attempt to use such a weapon, or provide it to some hostile non-state actor, or a state actor supporting some radical or jihadist movement, runs the risk of being significantly harmed by one or more of the superpowers. The idea of sanctions is to induce the sanctioned party to the negotiations table and act in good faith. And importantly enough, it is the need to steer research and development in the direction of high energy commercial projects; as opposed to, weapons programs.

It is almost impossible to tell the actual motivation (political, diplomatic, militarily, economically, industrially and cultural legacy) behind the US involvement in the P5+1 (US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany) sponsorship of these negotiations. It is likely that while there are some commonalities shared in the effort, some of the parties are interested in some future advantage this might hold for them in the future.

I think (IMO) it is a bit too early to cheer or criticize the outcomes. We simply do not have enough information on the subject.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree with most of what you say here

the "deal" is not a deal----it is a capitulation------the parameters of the "deal" are far too constrained. It should have included the terrorist activities supported by Iran----Iran's yet to exist atom bomb is not actually creating a problem right now

if you read my essay, you would know my response to that, but it appears you have not.

I read that which you optimistically call your "essay"------In fact it is an exercise in
supercilious self back patting. You do make a very interesting ASSERTION---being ----this new deal will result in LESS TERRORISM-----no doubt you mean----less Iranian backed terrorism. Wanna bet? In fact this deal will result in
MORE TERRORISM-------both Shiite and Sunni. You also assert that no person who has enough food and a nice house becomes a terrorist-----thus placing a final seal on the fact that you are clueless. I have known ---in the USA --Iranians since the mid 60s. Lots. All were intelligent and motivated
to be happy successful prosperous ----something like upper middle class americans. I was so impressed that in 1979 (being still young) I ASSERTED that this ayatoilet stuff will be ALL OVER in two years. BUT----over the years knowing lots of Iranians (I even have an Iranian relative by marriage) ----I have a deeper insight into "IRANIAN"-------Iranians are-----whether YOU want to believe it or not-----a people with an interesting ethos pertaining to BEING
IRANIAN.-----------in fact they are something like germans -----who----whether YOU want to believe it or not------are........are you ready? -------breathe evenly and slowly----------PRONE TO NATIONALISM. as in------for the sake of simplicity "WE IS THE BEST" Iranians and germans are not the only we is the best" people-----even Japanese have a "we is the best" complex I learned all about it from Iranians------not just muslim Iranians----even jewish Iranians (like my distant relative and some of my colleagues) Today's Iranians are very nationalistic and together with islam of the Shiite variety what iran is today is something like 15th century SPAIN seeking its manifest destiny----- or the BRITISH EMPIRE----doing its cosmic good deed of bringing tea to the
the brownish people of the world. Right now its big time project is TAKE MECCA------he who owns the rock -----owns the UMMAH

feel free to ask questions------you are not as smart as you think you are-----
in fact you express youself like an Iranian

the relevant points you make here are ones I have already addressed many times. your attacks on my intelligence and knowledge of the situation are unfounded and just make you sound desperate. If you want to present a relevant argument, I am happy to talk, but all you are doing is saying that I am wrong without any sort of counterclaim. you think that you know everything about the middle east because you know a few Iranians, but you are wrong, and I would venture to say you are not as smart as you think you are.

wrong again----you made very specific and UNFOUNDED assertions which I countered. ------but--it is true---not in detail. You decided that people with a clean house and food-----never become terrorists. You decided that the deal between the US and Iran WILL reduce Iranian terrorism. You were very nonspecific as to what YOU consider Iranian terrorism----and I, very simply, disagreed and still do I consider terrorism that which Iran has supported
in YEMEN for many years and now accelerating. Hezbollah in an organization FULLY funded and controlled by Iran----with plants all over the middle east.
You can ASSERT from today until tomorrow and standing on your head that Hezbollah will no longer engage in terrorism or even that it never did as many
persons who imagine themselves "liberal humanists" claim----
Iran has an agenda that it has OPENLY stated of ISLAM OF THE SHIITE VARIETY FOR THE WORLD -------you missed that fact completely---or preferred to ignore it ------or want to cover it up. It is for this reason that I considered the possibility that you are Iranian. You also ignore the reality of the Middle east----
TODAY------including the MANIACAL ambitions of ERDOGAN-----and----isis.
You delight youself with--------"if everyone eats, nobody fights" << nope

again, you provide no counter to my arguments. you keep saying that Iran has funded-and continues to fund terrorist organizations. this is true, and I never denied it. you have not, however, told me why you disagree with my prediction.

 

[irosie91]

eagle1462010, et al,

This is (IMO) closer to the track of the discussion -- where it should be.

The Iran Nuclear Negotiations U.S. Concession After U.S. Concession

So what are the metrics to judge the outcome—to judge whether this is a good or bad deal. I think they are straightforward. Here are five:

1. Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability—the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?
2. Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?
3. Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?
4. Is the agreement effectively verifiable?
5. And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

The answer to each of these questions is NO—a reality that is becoming apparent across party lines.

(COMMENT)

Q1: Does the agreement deny Iran a nuclear weapons capability — the longstanding declared goal of the United States and the international community?

A1: Even the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) does not deny any country Nuclear Weapons (NW). At best it can delay it. Under Article X each party to the NPT has the right to withdraw if it decides that the agreement jeopardizes the their individual national security interests. Any party can withdrawal at any time given a 90 day notice (3 months). Iran is no exception. Iran is not likely to accept any deal that does not have a similar escape clause. While the NPT, which entered into force in 1970 --- has been extended indefinitely (Decision 3 --- 1995 NPT Review Conference), there is a review conferences required every five years; with the last one held in last month (May 2015). The NPT is 45 years old.​

Q2: Does the agreement, once the constraints expire, prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time?

A2: This new agreement seems to prevent Iran from building a Heavy Water (HW) facility or accumulating Heavy Water for a 15 year period (2030). This only delays the production of of weapons grade plutonium based on the one technology. I'm not sure how confident we should be that other technologies will not become available in that interval. The current Arak HW Reactor is not currently fueled. Under the new agreement, Iran agrees to re-engineer the Arak Reactor such that it cannot be used to general the useable fuel rods. All spent fuel will be shipped to a disposal program outside Iran; for as long as the Arak Reactor exists. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will cut the centrifuges use by about 75% (least efficient models) and Iran will limit their enrichment process to less than 5% (3%-4% concentration of U-235). It appears the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will pickup surveillance. The language used was a "extraordinary and robust monitoring, verification, and inspection." Apparently Iran has agreed to implement the additional Protocols relative to the Safeguards Agreement.​

Q3: Does the agreement extend the breakout time in a meaningful way?

A3: Break-out Time is related to the factors that constrain the development of plutonium at the 90% enrichment level. By reducing the number of centrifuges to about 25% of their current numbers and retaining the least efficient models; as well as preventing enrichment beyond the 5% level, the break-out period will be approximately 45 days to generate weapons grade material in the quantity required to make the first weapon after the termination of the agreement.​

Q4: Is the agreement effectively verifiable?

A4: I'm not sure the question can be answered. However, the production, logistics, storage and maintenance of a warhead is very expensive under normal security conditions. The necessary covert and clandestine activities associated with and necessary to defeat IAEA Inspection Protocols would be huge. Even in Iran, it might become cost prohibitive.​

Q5: And is there a meaningful phased relief of sanctions and are there guaranteed snap-back provisions?

A5: "Snap-Back refers to the UN approved sanctions/embargoes mechanisms, once lifted, to be re-introduced and put back in place. As extensive as the provisions are, it might take 3-to-6 months to get a majority in place, while some --- may never get back in place.​

So how did we get into this mess? The answer is clear:

• The Administration has violated every rule of good negotiating practice—the basic tenets of negotiating 101.
• Instead of increasing pressure on Tehran through more sanctions, they relieved sanctions to, in their words, keep Iran at the table, but it was these very sanctions that brought them to the table.
• Instead of making clear to Iran that Iran needed an agreement more than we, the Administration has demonstrated just the opposite: that it is desperate for an agreement—a desperation that Iran’s negotiators have exploited to the fullest, as seen today with Iran’s last minute insistence on ending the arms embargo.
• Instead of insisting that a deadline actually means a deadline, the Administration has allowed Iran to squeeze further concessions each time the latest deadline approaches and passes.
• Most important, instead of holding the line on those key issues that would determine whether the agreement is good or bad—whether it advances our security interests or undermines them—the Administration made concession after concession.

(COMMENT)

Maybe. Certainly I know a number of knowledgeable people that would agree with some of this criticism. Having said that, the establishment of a NW Program is an expensive proposition for any nation; superpowers on down --- let alone Iran. And it is a weapons system that Iran is not likely to ever use. Any nation that would attempt to use such a weapon, or provide it to some hostile non-state actor, or a state actor supporting some radical or jihadist movement, runs the risk of being significantly harmed by one or more of the superpowers. The idea of sanctions is to induce the sanctioned party to the negotiations table and act in good faith. And importantly enough, it is the need to steer research and development in the direction of high energy commercial projects; as opposed to, weapons programs.

It is almost impossible to tell the actual motivation (political, diplomatic, militarily, economically, industrially and cultural legacy) behind the US involvement in the P5+1 (US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany) sponsorship of these negotiations. It is likely that while there are some commonalities shared in the effort, some of the parties are interested in some future advantage this might hold for them in the future.

I think (IMO) it is a bit too early to cheer or criticize the outcomes. We simply do not have enough information on the subject.

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree with most of what you say here

the "deal" is not a deal----it is a capitulation------the parameters of the "deal" are far too constrained. It should have included the terrorist activities supported by Iran----Iran's yet to exist atom bomb is not actually creating a problem right now

if you read my essay, you would know my response to that, but it appears you have not.

I read that which you optimistically call your "essay"------In fact it is an exercise in
supercilious self back patting. You do make a very interesting ASSERTION---being ----this new deal will result in LESS TERRORISM-----no doubt you mean----less Iranian backed terrorism. Wanna bet? In fact this deal will result in
MORE TERRORISM-------both Shiite and Sunni. You also assert that no person who has enough food and a nice house becomes a terrorist-----thus placing a final seal on the fact that you are clueless. I have known ---in the USA --Iranians since the mid 60s. Lots. All were intelligent and motivated
to be happy successful prosperous ----something like upper middle class americans. I was so impressed that in 1979 (being still young) I ASSERTED that this ayatoilet stuff will be ALL OVER in two years. BUT----over the years knowing lots of Iranians (I even have an Iranian relative by marriage) ----I have a deeper insight into "IRANIAN"-------Iranians are-----whether YOU want to believe it or not-----a people with an interesting ethos pertaining to BEING
IRANIAN.-----------in fact they are something like germans -----who----whether YOU want to believe it or not------are........are you ready? -------breathe evenly and slowly----------PRONE TO NATIONALISM. as in------for the sake of simplicity "WE IS THE BEST" Iranians and germans are not the only we is the best" people-----even Japanese have a "we is the best" complex I learned all about it from Iranians------not just muslim Iranians----even jewish Iranians (like my distant relative and some of my colleagues) Today's Iranians are very nationalistic and together with islam of the Shiite variety what iran is today is something like 15th century SPAIN seeking its manifest destiny----- or the BRITISH EMPIRE----doing its cosmic good deed of bringing tea to the
the brownish people of the world. Right now its big time project is TAKE MECCA------he who owns the rock -----owns the UMMAH

feel free to ask questions------you are not as smart as you think you are-----
in fact you express youself like an Iranian

the relevant points you make here are ones I have already addressed many times. your attacks on my intelligence and knowledge of the situation are unfounded and just make you sound desperate. If you want to present a relevant argument, I am happy to talk, but all you are doing is saying that I am wrong without any sort of counterclaim. you think that you know everything about the middle east because you know a few Iranians, but you are wrong, and I would venture to say you are not as smart as you think you are.

wrong again----you made very specific and UNFOUNDED assertions which I countered. ------but--it is true---not in detail. You decided that people with a clean house and food-----never become terrorists. You decided that the deal between the US and Iran WILL reduce Iranian terrorism. You were very nonspecific as to what YOU consider Iranian terrorism----and I, very simply, disagreed and still do I consider terrorism that which Iran has supported
in YEMEN for many years and now accelerating. Hezbollah in an organization FULLY funded and controlled by Iran----with plants all over the middle east.
You can ASSERT from today until tomorrow and standing on your head that Hezbollah will no longer engage in terrorism or even that it never did as many
persons who imagine themselves "liberal humanists" claim----
Iran has an agenda that it has OPENLY stated of ISLAM OF THE SHIITE VARIETY FOR THE WORLD -------you missed that fact completely---or preferred to ignore it ------or want to cover it up. It is for this reason that I considered the possibility that you are Iranian. You also ignore the reality of the Middle east----
TODAY------including the MANIACAL ambitions of ERDOGAN-----and----isis.
You delight youself with--------"if everyone eats, nobody fights" << nope

again, you provide no counter to my arguments. you keep saying that Iran has funded-and continues to fund terrorist organizations. this is true, and I never denied it. you have not, however, told me why you disagree with my prediction.

Ok----here goes----you have predicted that somehow----the "agreement" will provide impoverished Iranians with a clean house and food-----and therefore---it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to want to be involved in that "DEATH TO...." cult that the AYATOILETS have imposed on them since 1979 because they will be 'HAPPY"---------History has demonstrated that "food and a clean house" has
never excluded the LURE OF TERRORISM---------some of our most nefarious
terrorist murderers come from-----"clean houses" and more than sufficient food. ------take the recent event in CHATTANOOGA-------middle class American
muslim-------college graduate----degree in engineering-------SHOT UP A BUNCH OF KIDS HE NEVER MET FOR THE GLORY OF ALLAH---and his rapist pig friend ---muhummad ------Go further back in history-----HERNAN CORTEZ was a wildly wealthy man when he decided that he needed to murder MONTEZUMA and thousands of Mexicans for the glory of Christianity and endless gold and the favor of that disgusting whore ISABELLA ----and----ultimately------the pope. Starvation does not create Islamic or --past Christian terrorism--------the two religions did it

 

[Josf]

"They seem to think that these are evil people, and the only solution is to bomb the heck out of them, when in reality this is the most effective method of making more terrorists. With the exception if ISIS (which is a special case that I may write an essay on in the future), the best and only way to end terrorism is to address its root causes. This means providing aid to the desperate, impoverished people who are most likely to resort to terrorism."

Ignorance concerning the initial crimes perpetrated against Iranian people by criminals working a legal fiction scam known as Limited Liability Incorporation is inexcusable whenever someone endeavors to claim authority over solving the results of those initial crimes. One result of those initial crimes was an effort to volunteer for mutual defense in a form of defensive government that has been called revolutionary. People elected a representative to help defend people against the criminals who were stealing natural resources. That happened in the 1950s.



Since 1946 the people in America were funding a terrorist training facility through their fraudulent "Federal Tax" scheme.

So now the current head of the fraudulent federal government is making a deal based upon the idea that funding terrorists is unlawful, and those who do so will be starved to death until they promise to stop funding terrorism?

And all this theater perpetuates unchallenged by individuals who claim to have a competitive viewpoint on both the problem and the solutions?

 

[irosie91]

You can't think like a Westerner....you have to think like a Muslim.

What about western Muslims?

west of what? even muslims born in the USA ------use the term "WESTERN IMPERIALISM" with a pained victimized bitter expression ------kinda how they
say "kafir" west of the nile? ----west Pakistan?

 

[RoccoR]

PhilosphyBeforeParty, et al,

With the discovery that Iran had acquired certain critical nuclear weapons design information (CNWDI) from Pakistan's AQ Khan, certain displeasure --- in a more formal statement of serious disapproval was expressed (Censure) by the more formal institution of penalties (Sanctions) were levied against Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran); levied by the parties to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Iran was found to have violated Article II, of the NPT, "not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." The Sanctions put in place were to accomplish four goals and objectives:

(√) To prevent the further transfer of CNWDI, and to render the CNWDI received moot through the application of special surveillance and tailored restrictions. Assist Iran in reaching a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to ensure that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful.

(√) To limit the research,development and manufacture of a delivery system [Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)] for an illicit CNWDI product; that would shift the security balance in the region.

(√) To pinpoint specific sectors within the Iranian Economy that are relevant to advancing illicit proliferation activities, centrifuge technology, and hampering those sectors that further involvement advancements in these areas; particularly in the field of uranium enrichment, and assistance for procuring equipment related to its laser enrichment experimentation.

(√) To place such economic and diplomatic pressure on Iran that it be enjoined to participate in discussions --- in a constructive and good faith manner --- with the E3+3 (France, Germany Russia + UK, US, China) on matters related to fulfilling its nonproliferation obligations within the meaning of the NPT (and the additional protocols).​

Working through the UN Security Council (UNSC), and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the international community developed an array of economic and political elements relating to discovery of Iran's nuclear, missile, and energy program that would hamper and prevent further development --- making it cost prohibitive to continue in that process. This included the import and export control regimes, sanctions on commodities important to the Iranian people, through imposed restrictions on shipping, transportation, and in the financial sectors.

These various restrictions, sanctions, and limitations levied on the Iranian Economy, and the scientific research and development sectors, were not intended to be a collective punishment, or to render an unfair benefit to the Iranian foreign trade programs, but as an incentive to cooperate with the grater International Community on the issue at hand.

I agree with most of what you say here (contrary to what many people here seem to think, I do not believe the deal will solve everything overnight), but you have not addressed one essential part of the issue: how the lifting of the sanctions affects the Iranian people. most view lifting sanctions as a sacrifice we had to make to get the parts of the deal that we wanted, but I believe that it will be helpful to the cause. Iran is not a country of religious zealots, and most Iranian citizens are eager to join the modern world. with the great economic relief this deal will bring (to the government and the people), they (many of whom are currently impoverished) will no longer be desperate, and desperation (for money, for a voice, etc.) is the most common and basic source of terrorism, and would also be the only reason to build a nuclear bomb. in addition, Iran would have a lot to lose if it built a bomb (far more than returning to its current state). its entire economy would come crashing down as foreign businesses pulled out of Iran and sanctions were put back in place. thousands, perhaps millions of people would begin protesting, approval ratings would plummet, and thing would generally be thrown into chaos, perhaps even (not likely, but it would be a possibility) a revolution.

so to summarize: Iran will have little to no reason to build a bomb after the deal, and there would be disastrous repercussions if it did.

(COMMENT)

There are two aspects to the Sanctions, Restrictions, and Limitations that were placed on Iran that should be understood.

First, the impact on the Iranian economy is not quite as devastating or draconian as the outside observer might first believe. While initially, the sanctions were quite painful. the Iranians proved to be much more resilient than the International Community gave them credit for; so the overall adverse impact lessened with time. Thus, when sanctions are lifted, the initial benefit will not be an immediate shot in the economic arm, but will be gradual and require rehabilitation within the economy.

Second, the impact was layered; domestic, regional and international. The impact globally (of lifting sanctions) does not come with some economic risk. Remember that even with the extended period of sanctions, Iran managed to have to rate in the top 30 economies ($400B+ GNP) and still has the 4th largest oil reserves, and the 2nd largest gas reserves.​

Yes, many people believed that Iran was "desperate;" but it was not. And while there many have been a grave impact in the beginning, and while some sectors of the economy were irreparably harmed, the nation was not devastated. And as sanctions are lifted, and Iran's economic atrophy gives way, most economic intelligence analysts are predicting to see a gradual acceleration in growth.

Relative to the need Iran perceives in the ownership of a nuclear capability, it did not want the capability as a deterrent. Iran wants (even today) to be a major influence in the Persian Gulf and Middle East Region. And there was a period in which Iran thought that with a nuclear capability, it could replace the US as the umbrella of security for the entire region. But Iran soon discovered exactly how much such a capability cost in the long run, and found out that they were more of an influence and would achieve more by threatening to develop such a capability then to actually have the capability. Eventually, Iran will play this card again.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[irosie91]

Look on the bright side-------as soon as Iran feels strong enough----it will get its Hezbollah/houthi goons in Yemen to ATTACK SAUDI ARABIA ------
Saudis are even more adept at slitting throats than are Iranians

 

[Josf]

"Eventually, Iran will play this card again."

Respectfully?

The idea that Iran can play a card once, let alone again, appears to be an idea that "Iran" is an individual capable of thought and action. The closet to that idea that Iran became was in response to the criminal take-over of Iranian resources, namely oil, and that ideal was crushed when criminals from Britain and America overthrew the elected representative of the Iranian people. So who is pulling the strings in Iran now that the American and British criminals have been thrown out of Iran a second time?

The first time the British and American criminals were thrown out of Iran the people elected a representative to throw out the British and American criminals. Then the British and American criminals put in place in Iran a Dictatorship of noteworthy ruthlessness, including "legal" torture, terror, and lesser crimes upon the people of Iran. Then another group in Iran overthrew the British and American FUNDED Dictatorship in Iran. Who is funding that group now?

Sweeping all that under the rug as if all that did not happen is not respecting the good people of Iran.

Then, looking back toward the good people of Britain and America, assuming there are any (respectfully), are these good people somehow connected to an entity going by the name United Nations, and if so what is the nature of that connection between the good people of Britain and America connected to this United Nations entity?

Earlier there were words suggesting that the good people of Britain and America were connected to this entity known as The United Nations by way of federation.

Earlier it was demonstrated factually that any federal connection is no longer valid when one of the members of federation resort to aggressive war for profit, or lesser crimes against humanity, and it was also earlier demonstrated that so called "sanctions" have been universally understood as an act of war.

There are at least 2 possible types of war.

1. Two or more belligerents seeking to criminally take over each other.

2. One belligerent seeking to criminally take-over a defender.

Given the fact that the people of Iran were already attacked by fraudulent "corporate" warfare, and their defense was to elect a representative who worked effectively at peacefully throwing out the aggressors, and then given the fact that the aggressors then resorted to military dictatorship through proxy as a second aggressive attack upon enslaving the people of Iran, and assuming control over the natural resources in Iran, and then given the fact that some group in Iran somehow managed to throw out the dictatorship by proxy, leading to the current situation, it stands to reason, with respect, that the people of Iran, perhaps not the current regime claiming authority over the people of Iran, are not the attackers, not the belligerents, not the criminals deserving collective punishment.

The obvious tool being used is falsehood as this claim of United Nations is posing as moral authority. Given the fact that the case against the Iraqi people resulted in mass starvation and a deal to trade oil for food, a demonstrable crime against humanity downgraded falsely into a so called "scandal," where at best a few individuals were offered up as scapegoats, thereby preserving the false voluntary (federation) connection between good, productive, moral, people in America, Britain, Iraq, and now Iran.

Fun and games?

Who pays?