Iran's Nuclear Program

[StringJunky]

 

The logic is impressive. That, given that one of the major US allies in the region - Saudi Arabia has capital punishment for homosexuality and severely disadvantaged position for women. Can;t really compare but from where I'm sitting human rights situation is better in Iran.

Frying pan or fire; which to choose?

[waitforufo]

 

The logic is impressive. That, given that one of the major US allies in the region - Saudi Arabia has capital punishment for homosexuality and severely disadvantaged position for women. Can;t really compare but from where I'm sitting human rights situation is better in Iran.

Diplomatically Iran and Saudi Arabia are two different issues. The question should be are human rights in Iran better under the theocracy then they were under the Shah. US actions put both into power. So who had the better play, Ike or Jimmy? With the Shah at least we had a secular leader and a country with normalized friendly relations with Israel. The theocracy on the other hand has been an unmitigated disaster, with worse human rights to boot. Where would we be in the middle east today without Iran's proxies Hamas and Hezbollah? Now Obama wants to give the theocracy a financially comfortable decade long runway to building the bomb. Gee what could possibly go wrong there?

[moth]

Diplomatically Iran and Saudi Arabia are two different issues. The question should be are human rights in Iran better under the theocracy then they were under the Shah. US actions put both into power. So who had the better play, Ike or Jimmy? With the Shah at least we had a secular leader and a country with normalized friendly relations with Israel. The theocracy on the other hand has been an unmitigated disaster, with worse human rights to boot. Where would we be in the middle east today without Iran's proxies Hamas and Hezbollah? Now Obama wants to give the theocracy a financially comfortable decade long runway to building the bomb. Gee what could possibly go wrong there?

 

What is the Republican solution? Reverse Iran-contra death squads? I believe Ollie is free.

[iNow]

I wonder... with all those who are poo pooing the potential deal, what alternative are you offering? We can nip around the edges, but it's only going to get marginally better. Zero nuclear activity isn't a viable option so we can either:

 

1) Try to marginally improve the current deal, but support its basic structure

 

2) Bomb them, even though we'd miss multiple sites, the problem would largely remain, and we'd be forced to accept the copious negative downstream consequences and additional decades of young anger and hatred

 

3) Do nothing / Point and go nanner nanner boo boo, the president is a muslim, kenyan, socialist, communist, leftie, liberal, whatever the ignorant lemmings are calling him these days...

 

Am I missing any?

 

Seriously: Why is there such opposition to #1 and what better options are there? I'm all ears.

[waitforufo]

Were we doing nothing before the framework agreement? No, There were and are international sanctions. I say were because Obama relaxed sanctions to encourage the framework talks. Then we could increase sanctions further. If they want the bomb, they can also have a crippled economy. I'm sure they understand that life is full of trade-offs.

 

With regard to them hating us, well they hate us now so who cares. With regard to copious negative down stream consequences, please list at least 10 and how these copious negative down stream consequences are avoided by letting Iran have the bomb in 10 to 15 years instead of now? Finally your youth comment is just silly. Iranian youth have no power to change their country from within.

[iNow]

Were we doing nothing before the framework agreement? No, There were and are international sanctions.

These haven't helped, though. What specifically do you think would change if sanctions continued and why do you think that?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-nuclear-deal-with-iran-is-the-best-option/2015/04/02/bc8292d2-d978-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html

Iran has expanded its nuclear program under sanctions for the last two decades. In 2003, Iran had under 200 centrifuges. Today it has 19,000. The restrictions are now tighter

Also, we lose international support if the deal doesn't happen, so consequently Iranian sanctions weaken despite the US "ratcheting them up."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/alternatives-obama-iran-nuclear-deal-israel/389751/

Yes, Congress can pass additional sanctions. But more American sanctions alone wont have much effect. After all, the United States began seriously sanctioning Iran in the mid-1990s. Yet for a decade and a half, those sanctions had no major impact on Irans nuclear program. Thats largely because foreign companies ignored American pleas to stop doing business with the Islamic Republic.

<snip>

Things changed in 2010 because the Obama administrationaided by the antics of then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejadconvinced European and Asian governments that the only way to get a diplomatic deal with Tehran was to apply economic pressure first. This global pressure has now isolated Iran from the world economy in a way that American pressure alone never could.

 

But if the United States walks away from a deal that European and Asian governments support, those governments will not indefinitely maintain a sanctions regime that lacks domestic political support and costs them money. Last year, a report by the European Council on Foreign Relations warned that those [in the United States] blocking implementation of a final deal could endanger the international consensus backing sanctions against Iran. If Congress torpedoes a deal, the report predicted, Europe might react by easing its unilateral oil embargo against Iran. In addition, China and Russia may become more sympathetic towards Irans position and see an opportunity to further advance their own interests at the expense of the US.

 

China, in particular, has a history of strong economic ties to Iran, a massive thirst for oil, and little interest in doing Americas bidding in the Middle East. If the United States walks away from a deal that Beijing has endorsed, its only a matter of time until China imports large quantities of Iranian crude. Chinese impatience is already starting to show. Beijing imported 30 percent more oil from Iran in 2014 than it had in 2013. As the International Crisis Groups Ali Vaez observes, The high-water mark of international sanctions is already behind us.

.

 

I say were because Obama relaxed sanctions to encourage the framework talks. Then we could increase sanctions further. If they want the bomb, they can also have a crippled economy. I'm sure they understand that life is full of trade-offs.

See above.

 

With regard to them hating us, well they hate us now so who cares.

Life, the reality in which we find ourselves, is not that black and white. Some do. Some don't. Caring is what starts to move more people into that latter category.

 

Finally your youth comment is just silly. Iranian youth have no power to change their country from within.

I completely disagree, but even if I fully stipulate/concede the point, they DO have the power to choose whether or not they become future terrorists or future friends/allies.

 

That's not at all "silly." That's actually the crux of the challenge before us.

 

 

EDIT: I notice that you failed to offer a better option as requested. You implicitly voted #3 - Do nothing / Maintain the status quo / Hope that sanctions somehow magically start working despite decades of having the opposite affect.

Edited April 9, 2015 by iNow

[pavelcherepan]

With regard to them hating us, well they hate us now so who cares. With regard to copious negative down stream consequences, please list at least 10 and how these copious negative down stream consequences are avoided by letting Iran have the bomb in 10 to 15 years instead of now? Finally your youth comment is just silly. Iranian youth have no power to change their country from within.

 

I think it's you who is being silly. If by easing off on sanctions the Western nations can in the future try and rely on the pro-west younger generation and your way of doing things would simply destroy all of this. In the face of hardships, especially if those are brought about by external forces what does flourish? That's right, nationalism. Do you really want to turn educated pro-west people in Iran into nationalists who will also march on streets screaming "Death to America!"?

 

Sanctions won't stop Iran from getting the bomb, bombing is unlikely to stop Iran from getting the bomb and the current deal is the best option out there. If you have a better one, as iNow said, we'd love to hear it.

Edited April 9, 2015 by pavelcherepan

[imatfaal]

 

 

 

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-white-house-is-openly-trolling-benjamin-netanyahu--lkcR2XyNJZ

[waitforufo]

These haven't helped, though. What specifically do you think would change if sanctions continued and why do you think that?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-nuclear-deal-with-iran-is-the-best-option/2015/04/02/bc8292d2-d978-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html

Also, we lose international support if the deal doesn't happen, so consequently Iranian sanctions weaken despite the US "ratcheting them up."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/alternatives-obama-iran-nuclear-deal-israel/389751/

.

 

See above.

 

Life, the reality in which we find ourselves, is not that black and white. Some do. Some don't. Caring is what starts to move more people into that latter category.

 

I completely disagree, but even if I fully stipulate/concede the point, they DO have the power to choose whether or not they become future terrorists or future friends/allies.

 

That's not at all "silly." That's actually the crux of the challenge before us.

 

 

EDIT: I notice that you failed to offer a better option as requested. You implicitly voted #3 - Do nothing / Maintain the status quo / Hope that sanctions somehow magically start working despite decades of having the opposite affect.

The above is more irrelevant nonsense in defense of your silly three choices. So lets go back and look at them again.

 

I wonder... with all those who are poo pooing the potential deal, what alternative are you offering? We can nip around the edges, but it's only going to get marginally better. Zero nuclear activity isn't a viable option so we can either:

 

1) Try to marginally improve the current deal, but support its basic structure

 

2) Bomb them, even though we'd miss multiple sites, the problem would largely remain, and we'd be forced to accept the copious negative downstream consequences and additional decades of young anger and hatred

 

3) Do nothing / Point and go nanner nanner boo boo, the president is a muslim, kenyan, socialist, communist, leftie, liberal, whatever the ignorant lemmings are calling him these days...

 

Am I missing any?

 

Seriously: Why is there such opposition to #1 and what better options are there? I'm all ears.

So these are our only three choices? But wait, there are two parties in this negotiation. So what options do the above three choices give the P5+1 group. Based on your three choices it looks like Iran has the P5+1 over a barrel. So please explain which of your choices the P5+1 powers should select if Iran walks away from the table?

 

 

I think it's you who is being silly. If by easing off on sanctions the Western nations can in the future try and rely on the pro-west younger generation and your way of doing things would simply destroy all of this. In the face of hardships, especially if those are brought about by external forces what does flourish? That's right, nationalism. Do you really want to turn educated pro-west people in Iran into nationalists who will also march on streets screaming "Death to America!"?

 

Sanctions won't stop Iran from getting the bomb, bombing is unlikely to stop Iran from getting the bomb and the current deal is the best option out there. If you have a better one, as iNow said, we'd love to hear it.

The future in Iran will be dominated by the same theocracy they have now unless we show that the theocracy is the road to no where. The pro-west younger generation has no influence on the theocracy and never will unless we make Iran as a nation pay the price for their leadership. Iran's citizens are responsible for what there government does.

[iNow]

I'll just point out that you continue to evade the question, and you're now simply trying to deflect the question posed to you by asking me to answer it instead.

 

I don't have a better answer. I see the current deal as the best currently available option. A first step along a longer path. You disagree. You think we should continue forward with sanctions. Why? What compels you to believe sanctions will magically start improving the problem now after two decades of failing at that task?

.

If Iran "walks away from the table," then clearly option 1 no longer exists and we are left with option 2 (bomb them) and option 3 (maintain status quo). This is an irrelevant red herring, though, since the question to you was why oppose option 1 (negotiate a deal).

[waitforufo]

I'm not apposed to negotiating a deal. I said in a previous post that Iran can have all the nuclear power it wants if their nuclear material is controlled by others. Unlike you and our president I know when to walk away from a bad deal. This is a bad deal. So bad the president doesn't want congress to vote on it because democrats won't support it.

Here is proof that Iran agrees with you that Obama is over a barrel.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-calls-for-end-of-saudi-led-airstrikes-on-yemen-after-sending-two-warships/2015/04/09/8a0ab446-de8d-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html

 

Obama and Kerry couldn't negotiate there way out of a paper bag. Just wait, Obama and Kerry will cave.

Edited April 9, 2015 by waitforufo

[moth]

 

Obama and Kerry couldn't negotiate there way out of a paper bag. Just wait, Obama and Kerry will cave.

 

You seem to be saying that although Obama and Kerry are the best negotiators among the representatives from the British, Germans, Russians, France, or China none of them are fit to negotiate with Iran.

Once again you tell us what's wrong, not how to fix it.

[waitforufo]

The US leads the P5+1 group.

 

I have clearly stated my position. Iran can have no path to the bomb ever. This position is reasonable because Iran threatens to destroy nations. It even has a holiday to calling for the destruction of nations. They have also demonstrated no respect for human rights since their founding. Until Iran agrees to this basic starting position sanctions should not only be maintained but steadily increased. If Iran develops the bomb anyway, then sanctions should again be increased until they give it up. If they appear to be readying a bomb for use then we should destroy their nuclear arsenal and their ability to make nuclear weapons. All of this should be clearly communicated to them. Again, this is a reasonable position because of their often stated intentions and actions.

Edited April 9, 2015 by waitforufo

[moth]

The US leads the P5+1 group.

 

I have clearly stated my position. Iran can have no path to the bomb ever.

 

Maybe it's reasonable, but it's not realistic.

My experience has been threats of violence only increase my opposition. I don't think the Iranian people are too different.

[waitforufo]

 

Maybe it's reasonable, but it's not realistic.

My experience has been threats of violence only increase my opposition. I don't think the Iranian people are too different.

But somehow we are supposed to be above all that "Death to America" talk. That talk comes from their supreme leaders all the way down to there common citizens.

 

Why the double standard?

[iNow]

Iran can have no path to the bomb ever. <snip> Until Iran agrees to this basic starting position sanctions should not only be maintained but steadily increased. If Iran develops the bomb anyway, then sanctions should again be increased until they give it up.

I guess where I'm unclear is why you think sanctions will help at all given their consistent history of not helping. Again, what do you believe would magically change in the future since they've been ineffective in the past?

 

I should also note that you seem to forget that the US is not operating in a vacuum here and that other nations would NOT support continued sanctions absent a deal like this (as already expressed by both China and Russia, and hinted at by Europe) so your approach seems feckless, ill-conceived, and entirely unrealistic. Can you convince me otherwise, or are you content to resort to name calling and character attacks on the President and Sec. of State?

[moth]

Iran "killing" the U.S. sounds like an empty threat even with an Iranian atomic bomb.

After the world trade center was brought down by Islamic terrorists there were many young Iranians on the street protesting against the terrorists, should we ignore them because their overlords suck?

[waitforufo]

Interesting that you still have your double standard. Why should our threats produce opposition, but their threats should not?

 

Iran "killing" the U.S. sounds like an empty threat even with an Iranian atomic bomb.

 

Will you feel that way if New York, Chicago, L.A, or San Francisco get nuked? What about Washington DC? They do wish our death and say so all the time.

 

 

After the world trade center was brought down by Islamic terrorists there were many young Iranians on the street protesting against the terrorists, should we ignore them because their overlords suck?

Yes we should. The youth have no influence over those in power in Iran.

 

During the Iranian revolution that put the theocracy in power, daily local newscasts started buy announcing the names or number of local Iranian citizens who were kill in the name a Allah. People were simply rounded up shot for being apostates. Something quite similar to "The Terror" during the French revolution. Don't think it can't happen again. Those same people are still in power.

 

You obviously have no appreciation for whom we are dealing with in Iran. If the youth get uppity, the theocracy will simply kill enough of them to shut the rest of them up. They will do it in the name of Allah, read there names on the news, and then cut to the celebrations in the streets.

Edited April 10, 2015 by waitforufo

[moth]

Interesting that you still have your double standard. Why should our threats produce opposition, but their threats should not?

 

 

Will you feel that way if New York, Chicago, L.A, or San Francisco get nuked? What about Washington DC? They do wish our death and say so all the time.

 

 

And you are here calling for their deaths.

If anybody managed to nuke any city in the u.s. it would be an enormous disaster, but it wouldn't "kill" the U.S.

Death to America is not only sloppy targeting, it's also empty rhetoric.

My standards don't include murdering people because they make threats or scare me.

 

[MigL]

They were chanting 'Death to America' in some parts of the middle east 20 yrs ago.

And good-hearted American people just laughed it off saying its just empty rhetoric. " What could they possibly do ?"

 

Then 3000 people died on 9/11, and America is still being affected by that event today.

 

Maybe I'm not as extreme as Waitforufo, but I'm not as naïve as Moth either.

 

I can almost guarantee that Iran will get nukes, and no agreements or show of force will deter them. Even an isolated, poor country like N Korea was able.

Maybe instead of negotiating agreements on enrichment which will no doubt be ignored, and keeping our fingers crossed, we should have made an agreement for more openness in their society. The people need access to all information, not just what the religious leaders feed them. That America is not the devil, and most Americans want to improve conditions in the rest of the world, not subjugate and exploit them.

[waitforufo]

 

And you are here calling for their deaths.

If anybody managed to nuke any city in the u.s. it would be an enormous disaster, but it wouldn't "kill" the U.S.

Death to America is not only sloppy targeting, it's also empty rhetoric.

My standards don't include murdering people because they make threats or scare me.

 

Nonsense. I'm calling for them to give up their nuclear bomb program. They can be a happy prosperous nation without nuclear bombs.

 

I guess I hold my fellow country men, women, and children a bit more dear than others like you. If you think the US overreacted to 9/11 with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, just wait until a US city is nuked.

 

The rhetoric of apocalyptic cults is not empty and should not be ignored.

 

Oh you are so brave with the lives of others. Thinking like yours is not making the world a safer place. Your thinking is encouraging their madness.

Edited April 10, 2015 by waitforufo

[moth]

Nonsense. I'm calling for them to give up their nuclear bomb program. They can be a happy prosperous nation without nuclear bombs.

 

Or, you'll bomb them.

 

I guess I hold my fellow country men, women, and children a bit more dear than others like you. If you think the US overreacted to 9/11 with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, just wait until a US city is nuked.

 

The rhetoric of apocalyptic cults is not empty and should not be ignored.

 

Oh you are so brave with the lives of others. Thinking like yours is not making the world a safer place. Your thinking is encouraging their madness.

 

I don't know where you're getting all this from, but are you saying that because you are a superior patriot, you must be right?

 

[iNow]

I'm calling for them to give up their nuclear bomb program.

By what means, though? Using what actual process?

 

Thus far, you've only called for more US sanctions, but you've failed to adequately respond to the rebuttal that sanctions have thus far failed and the international community is no longer willing to help us sustain them moving forward, anyway.

 

So, what specific steps do you recommend be taken to convince Iran to give up their entire nuclear program?

Edited April 10, 2015 by iNow

[waitforufo]

First, this entire topic is becoming moot because of the lying, deceptive, devilish occupant in the White House.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ayatollah-khamenei-accuses-wh-lying-being-deceptive-and-having-devilish-intentions_914336.html

 

By what means, though? Using what actual process?

Thus far, you've only called for more US sanctions, but you've failed to adequately respond to the rebuttal that sanctions have thus far failed and the international community is no longer willing to help us sustain them moving forward, anyway.

So, what specific steps do you recommend be taken to convince Iran to give up their entire nuclear program?

 

I have clearly stated my position and it is more than just sanctions. Here it is again.

 

I have clearly stated my position. Iran can have no path to the bomb ever. This position is reasonable because Iran threatens to destroy nations. It even has a holiday to calling for the destruction of nations. They have also demonstrated no respect for human rights since their founding. Until Iran agrees to this basic starting position sanctions should not only be maintained but steadily increased. If Iran develops the bomb anyway, then sanctions should again be increased until they give it up. If they appear to be readying a bomb for use then we should destroy their nuclear arsenal and their ability to make nuclear weapons. All of this should be clearly communicated to them. Again, this is a reasonable position because of their often stated intentions and actions.

 

Will this keep Iran from building a bomb. Likely no. Will the lying, deceptive, devil's plan keep Iran from getting the bomb. Definitely not. The devil's plan will simply allow Iran to have a prosperous economy and a comfortable development schedule. My plan will at least has costs for Iran. The devil's plan only has benefits for Iran.

 

One day when Iran incinerates a city I'm sure those like you will say "Oh shucks, I guess they really meant all that death to nations rhetoric. Who would have guessed? I least we tried our hardest to be nice to them so it's not our fault. We all know that good intentions is all that maters."

[Willie71]

First, this entire topic is becoming moot because of the lying, deceptive, devilish occupant in the White House.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ayatollah-khamenei-accuses-wh-lying-being-deceptive-and-having-devilish-intentions_914336.html

 

 

 

I have clearly stated my position and it is more than just sanctions. Here it is again.

 

 

 

Will this keep Iran from building a bomb. Likely no. Will the lying, deceptive, devil's plan keep Iran from getting the bomb. Definitely not. The devil's plan will simply allow Iran to have a prosperous economy and a comfortable development schedule. My plan will at least has costs for Iran. The devil's plan only has benefits for Iran.

 

One day when Iran incinerates a city I'm sure those like you will say "Oh shucks, I guess they really meant all that death to nations rhetoric. Who would have guessed? I least we tried our hardest to be nice to them so it's not our fault. We all know that good intentions is all that maters."

 

I think you watch too much Fox News. You are repeating their uninformed talking points. For the record, the only nation that has ever used a nuclear weapon is the US. By your reasoning, they are the worst offenders in the world.

 

Secondly, for the record, Iran had nothing to do with 9-11. It was the US ally Saudi Arabia who did it. This resulted in no retaliation, no sanctions, nothing against Saudi Arabia? Why is that?