« Belated Open Thread - 2016 Candidates | Main | A southern confluence »

July 11, 2015

Comments

Objection, your honor.
All crime is organized unless committed by corporations or right wing extremists (both the latter are ALWAYS the work of isolated individuals). The illegals are all part of a criminal organisation bound for retaking the US for the half-bloods. They took over all crime in the US and suppressed the local variety. But since we all know that Latinos are totally incompetent at anything beyond unskilled labour (like their spiritual kin, the n-words) and crime is something for experts, of course crime has to drop. The highly skilled locals have been pushed out of the business and the newcomers are unable to provide an adequate replacement 'service'. That the illegals are also all obligated to carry some debilitating disease, does not help either. Even a person of low pigmentation will struggle to organize a proper crime ring while having to deal with leprosy, malaria, polio* etc., so what could one expect mestizos and half-n-words to achieve?

*think of what FDR could have done without being wheelchair bound. Fall to your knees and praise the LOrd for that handicap that saved the country (although just barely).

Hartmut, what a beautiful job of continuing the tone of the original post! I am in awe, sir.

On Sanctuary Cities, Hillary Clinton Joins Hands With Donald Trump: The San Francisco woman's shooting death by an undocumented immigrant triggers bipartisan hypocrisy

Dang it, Hartmut beat me to it.

I was going to posit that we would have had negative crime rates by now had we wisely closed our borders.

The evidence clearly suggests that undocumented immigrants displace their own psychic mass in crime-oriented etheric resonances, given the troubled state of too many Latin American countries.

And losing etheric resonances, or any other kind of resonances, would have an entirely unacceptable impact on American music. Even that horrid rock and roll. (Oh wait, that was the previous generations view of rock and roll....)

Speaking of open threadery -- heads up, fellow front-pagers, I'll be putting up a Pluto post first thing tomorrow morning.

Thanks!

I was considering that as well. Glad someone better qualified is taking care of it.

Hopefully Dr. S., your "Pluto post" will pay proper respect to the finality of the New Horizons mission. No, it obviously will not be (in absolute terms, or even the absolutest we can imagine) the LAST planetary-probe mission like EVER!!; but at least the last that most of us (even adjusting the definition of "us" to ObWings commenters/lurkers/readers) are likely to hear/read of/experience for many, many decades to come.

50 years after Mariner: a nice tidy demi-century of exploration...

Well, someone's is just HAS to send a spaceprobe to Eris, to find out if it's apple-shaped and somewhat yellow colored.

I suppose finding an inscription "ΤΗΙ ΚΑΛΛΙΣΤΗΙ" would be too much to hope for...

In Capitalist America, immigrants robbed by you!

Bibi's argument that a covert nuclear weapons program is like a meth lab that can be wiped clean with 24 day notice before inspection is ludicrous. Ask folks in the Northwest how that cleanup is going at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a9185a8583/the-dealbreakers?fb_ref=Default

Netanyahu's approach is to compare anything that he doesn't love to what would happen in the ideal world of his imagination. Which, of course, has litle (and decreasing) relation to the alternatives available in the real world.

There's a popular trope that often gets trotted out in the face of an inconvenient dichotomy: insistence that there's always a third option. Obama says (paraphrasing): "We can negotiate or we can bomb. Which do youse guys wanna do?" His opponents, too chicken to sing a rousing chorus of "Bomb Iran" and too pissy to allow Obama credit for anything, will persist in arguing that a competent white Republican President would have been able to browbeat the Ayatollahs into unconditional surrender by sheer oratory in the We're-Number-One strain.

Netanyahu might, possibly, be a third-alternative, no-dichotomy-here-folks type. But he gives me the impression that he's sincerely a bomb-Iran type. It's hard to tell with religious fanatics.

--TP

SURE, there's a third option!

Bomb Iran...with Netanyahu!

I can see no downside to this option.

Uh, sanctions?

New, refreshing, innovative...

I seem to recall we tried sanctions? If not, then we essentially gave away nothing, right?

So, where's the beef?

Why not just build a giant wall all the way around Iran, thus demonstrating our toughness and resolve which are way more important than actually achieving any kind of diplomatic goals, because actually achieving your diplomatic goals is for wimps.

Netanyahu is welcome to start bombing Iran any time he wants. on his own. without our help or backing.

fight your own fights, Bibi.

The trouble with sanctions at this point is this. If the US refused to negotiate, or refused to go along with an agreement that everybody else embraced, the sanctions would evaporate. That is, we might still have sanctions, but the rest of the world would remove theirs. Which would mean that Iran would effectively be once again part of the world economy. And with no need to make any changes to their nuclear program.

Sanctions only work if they are widespread. Which wouldn't be the case here.

i'm kindof amazed at how much uncritical press the petulant professional anti-Obama demagogues are getting over this.

why does anyone think Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton have anything new or interesting to say about this or anything else?

Dear site administrator,

I write to inquire if anybody who uses a Munich analogy will be banned, or worse, laughed at.

Respectfully,

I'm surprised at how an agreement that removes all penalties with no Iranian concession, except they will take additional investment dollars, gets so much uncritical press. *Big shrug* Obama has been way past caring if what he does is good or helpful for a year. As hsh has pointed out, he is doing a historic amount of stuff. Just badly.

I'm surprised at how an agreement that removes all penalties with no Iranian concession, except they will take additional investment dollars

that agreement exists only in your imagination.

There would of course be the option GOP critters called for a few years ago but that was ignored by that spineless wimp Dubya: The glorious blockade of Iran. The navy would start and threaten to board or blow up any ship approaching ot trying to leave Iranian territory. Even China would not dare to defy the might of the US NAVY!!! And all states bordering Iran are either US vassals or could be browbeaten into participating, and if all else fails: pipelines can be sabotaged by freedom fighters (the ones the State Department for unknown reasons has labelled terrorists) or simply bombed.
Btw, it has been quite some time that any Iranian nuclear scientist has been robbed of his life. Time to catch up.

[Short break for seriousness: I would not put it beyond the yahoo from Netanja to restart the assassination program in order to sabotage the deal.]

banned, or worse, laughed at

Banned? Probably not.

Laughed at? Probably. Although sneered at seems more likely. ;-)

The youngsters in Iran don't think of US as the 'Great Satan'
... just another little devil.
75% of Iranians were born after 1979.
Supreme Leader Khamenei was born in 1939.
The no nukes option expires in 2030.
The devil is in the details
Demography is destiny.

“Iran will increase the number of designated IAEA inspectors to the range of 130-150 within 9 months from the date of the implementation of the JCPOA, and will generally allow the designation of inspectors from nations that have diplomatic relations with Iran, consistent with its laws and regulations,” the deal states, according to text released by the Russians and Iranians.

*130-150*

*generally allow*

*consistent with its laws and regulations*


Does anyone disagree that this is part of the text of the agreement?

Looks like somebody got pencil-whipped and it wasn't the Iranians.

I read but have not verified that the US agreed that no US inspectors will be allowed in country. We are relying on third parties.

If true, do supporters of the agreement think this is tough negotiating?

And a good agreement?

And we are giving Iran money too?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/34ed030a-2b19-11e5-acfb-cbd2e1c81cca.html#axzz3g68MlGD1

The phrase 'pencil-whipped' is cute, but suggests that you think international relations is simply a measuring contest.

If true, do supporters of the agreement think this is tough negotiating?

Given the state of relations with Iran since the fall of the Shah, obviously yes. However, people such as Ted Cruz seem to feel that if you do not get 100% of what you want in discussions, you are not being "tough" enough. It that case, it would not be a bi-lateral negation. It would be a diktat. As an attorney, you should know they are not the same thing.

And a good agreement?

Yes.

And we are giving Iran money too?

Don't know. I believe we are returning Iranian funds that were impounded at the start of the sanctions policy. I'd be willing to bet money we are keeping the accrued interest.

it looks to me like the main reason there might not be any u.s. inspectors has more to do with the phrase "diplomatic relations" than the phrase "consistent with its laws and regulations." regardless of the national composition of the inspection teams, the iaea has done a stellar job since its creation. i have i have no qualms about their diligence or their expertise.

as for whether this is tough negotiating, i think it is significant that within the arms control and nuclear nonproliferation community this agreement has gotten very high marks with many experts calling the inspections regime a far better deal than anyone expected. the snapback provisions which obviate a chinese or russian veto in the security council have also gotten high praise. on the whole, i would say that having kept all the negotiating partners on board while creating an agreement that puts serious limitations on the iranian ability to create a nuclear weapon over the next 15-25 years demonstrates exceptional skill in negotiating.

And, as with any negotiation, the question that has to be asked is: what are the alternatives? Could we have gotten a better deal? Given how long these negotiations dragged on, probably not. So would no deal have been better? Not unless you live in a fantasy world where the rest of the noegotiators would have kept all sanctions in place if the US sunk the agreement becvause we couldn't get better terms.

wj, why should we put our blessing on a bad deal, even if everyone else signs it? What is the value to us to be part of a coalition that allows Iran to have nuclear weapons? If everyone in the world unilaterally lifts sanctions the outcome will be the same. But we wont have sanctioned it. You have said multiple times that there are only two alternatives. The third is to say we don't agree, then Iran builds a nuclear capacity faster, but no more certainly. Then if we need to react there isn't a treaty limiting our alternatives.

If Iran builds nuclear weapons, it is in violation of the treaty. And we actually have more options, not fewer. In particular, we can get the sanctions by everyone, not just us, snapped back into place.

What limitations on us do you see the treaty making?

Then if we need to react there isn't a treaty limiting our alternatives.

ORLY?

And then there's this: http://xkcd.com/1552/

(Anybody else wonder how it is that XKCD so often has something relevanmt the same day we are talking about a subject? Just seems . . . odd.)

Excerpts from Wikipedia:

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA; Persian: برنامه جامع اقدام مشترک‎) is a nuclear agreement signed in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran, the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China, France, —plus Germany), and the European Union.

(...)

Reactions

Political and diplomatic reactions

There was a significant worldwide response following the announcement of the agreement. Most countries and international organizations welcomed the agreement, yet there was a strong negative response from the Israeli government, AIPAC[34] as well as some Republicans in the United States and some Iranian hardliners.

(...)

Expert reactions

The reception of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action among arms control analysts was "overwhelmingly positive," while the reception among Middle East policy analysts was more divided.

It seems to me, as someone who doesn't know much about such things and has to go by what other people are saying, and considering who's saying what, that this is a good deal, at least within the context of ... hmmm - what's the word? - oh, yeah ... reality.

the Israeli government, AIPAC[34] as well as some Republicans in the United States and some Iranian hardliners

aka: people who apparently thrive on belligerence and conflict and cast everything as an apocalyptic clash-of-civilizations Us Or Them™ situation.

the world could stand fewer of them.

In two years when the inspectors have been sent home multiple times for stupid reasons and nothing has been inspected we'll all be arguing about who is breaking the treaty.

People will be quoting Wikipedia, unnamed(or even quoted) arms control analysts who pretty much have to say its a good deal since they were in charge of making it, and, oh yeah, most countries and international organizations who I care about why?

So I can pretty much go read Wikipedia to figure out what my opinion should be? Really?

So I can pretty much go read Wikipedia to figure out what my opinion should be? Really?

No. That was just a convenient place to find something concise on the subject. You're free to read whatever you like to form your opinion. Your opinion, in and of itself, just isn't that compelling to me.

Marty, so what would you prefer instead of this deal? A different deal? (And if so, why do you think the other parties, e.g. the EU, Russia, China, would go for it?) A military option? (And how do you expect to make that work? Or do you just want to nuke the entire country to glass?)

@marty--

i quote myself because your comment makes clear you didn't read my comment

"as for whether this is tough negotiating, i think it is significant that within the arms control and nuclear nonproliferation community this agreement has gotten very high marks with many experts calling the inspections regime a far better deal than anyone expected. the snapback provisions which obviate a chinese or russian veto in the security council have also gotten high praise. on the whole, i would say that having kept all the negotiating partners on board while creating an agreement that puts serious limitations on the iranian ability to create a nuclear weapon over the next 15-25 years demonstrates exceptional skill in negotiating."

i don't know where you're getting your information about the deal but this agreement is getting high praise from experts i the field of nonproliferation for the reasons i listed. most of the people i've read criticizing the deal are either people who have made it clear they know nothing about the deal because they are so wrong on the substance of the deal or they are the same group of incompetents who got us into the iraq debacle and have long wanted to attack iran no matter what they do. under the circumstances this is not only the best deal we were ever likely to get it's also a better deal than we had any reason to expect going in. 30 or 40 years from now students of foreign relations will be studying this deal and the negotiations leading up to it as a model of the power of negotiation.

...most countries and international organizations who I care about why?

This is the sort of thing I look for in international affairs, when trying to decide whose opinion is based on thoughtful consideration. USA! USA! USA! Kneel before Zod!

It is funny how quoting Wikipedia gets criticized by someone who simply bloviates and opines freely.

I want a deal that prevents a nuclear Iran, or no deal. There is no significant downside to no deal. I wont expand my domination of the Middle East for a few more years if you give me everything I want, is not a deal.

Nor is it realistic, because ad of today every country in the Middle East has to deal with Iran as if they have nuclear capability today.

Russia and China think it'd a good deal? That means its likely bad for us. The EU thinks its a good deal, they thought the euro was a good idea.

What benefit does the US derive from this deal?

There is no significant downside to no deal.

Iran goes full out to get the bomb. But I guess that is "insignificant".

I agree Navarro, thirty or forty years from this negotiation will be studied as a model for something.

And as far as blovating goes hsh, I do that no more than others, including you. And as far as USA, we are negotiating deal, our interests are what are supposed to be represented. I'm not sure why we should think differently.

What benefit does the US derive from this deal?

Non-nuclear Iran
An end to the moral stain of sanctions (an act of war) on what's left of our character.
More trade and open relations with a large country in the Middle East.
Access to oil (I hear they have some).

bobbyp, we just agreed they could have the bomb. A significant portion of its geopolitical impact has been realized.

What benefit does the US derive from this deal?

We deprive Khamenei of anti-US talking points that draw attention from authoritarian domestic policies.

Among other things.

Hardline conservatives (and conservatives who hope top scuttle the deal in both countries to advance their own agendas and who read wickedpedia) in the U.S. and Iran hate this deal.

Ditto for hardline conservatives in Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Ditto for hardline conservatives in Russia and China.

In future I hope to see negotiations for all international agreements and domestic legislation in and between all countries conducted on separate parallel tracks, the usual arduous way conducted by normal human beings that leads to imperfect but practical agreements with possible positive outcomes, and in a separate geographical location, the conservative way that leads off with effing threats of annihilation, followed quickly nuclear mushroom clouds, but only where conservatives live.

We'll see who survives longest.

And as far as USA, we are negotiating deal, our interests are what are supposed to be represented.

We are ONE of the half dozen parties negotiating this deal. As with any negotiation, we didn't get everything we might have wanted. But we did get most of what we wanted. The same can be said for most of the parties to the negotiation -- got some of what they wanted, but not all.

And I, too, am unclear on the upside of "no deal". Doesn't "no deal" meant that (assuming they actually want to) Iran gets to go forward with a nuke? Immediately. How is that better?

And as far as USA, we are negotiating deal, our interests are what are supposed to be represented. I'm not sure why we should think differently.

We shouldn't. But when considering what is in our interests, we have to recognize that the United States does not exist in a vacuum. The rest of the world actually matters (even to us! ...and necessarily) and has to be part of the longer view of what is actually in our best interests.

And as far as blovating goes hsh, I do that no more than others, including you.

That's all fine. Just stop whining about quoting Wikipedia, as though I'm somehow restricting you from other sources, even though you don't usually have any.

And I, too, am unclear on the upside of "no deal".

"no deal" doesn't expose the sad fact that other countries aren't simply vassals for us to command.

What will be interesting to see is how Iran changes over the next 10 to 20 years, after being able to more fully participate in the world economy. It's marginalization that leads to radicalization. What will benefit Iran more - being belligerent, or being a trustworthy member of the world community, now that the latter is actually a viable option?

And what benefits Iran doesn't have to come at the expense of the Unites States interests. Not everything is a zero-sum game, contrary to what many people seem to think.

United States'

And one of the most interesting pieces of fallout from this deal is politically within Iran. It increases the clout of the (relative) moderates versus the conservatives. Which is why their hardliners were so opposed. And also why the deal has so much popular support.

Iran won't change overnight. But the direction may well have been set.

bobbyp, we just agreed they could have the bomb.

?????

Good for us, I guess. So why all the carping about the agreement?

If Iran is going to "get the bomb" in any event, then what are your policy objectives viz Iran, and what do you opine as to means for the US to achieve them?

Then I might just have some clue as to what the hell your are talking about.

i really don't understand what the folks objecting to this agreement find so bad about it. it establishes an inspection regime that is both stringent and comprehensive. it requires verifiable cutbacks in uranium stockpiles, centrifuges, and enrichment levels. it has a snapback mechanism on the sanctions that bypasses the russian and chinese veto in the security council, and it prevents the iranians from getting a nuclear weapon for 15-25 years if not longer. it's almost as if the people opposed to this agreement would rather invade or bomb iran rather than come to a realistically good deal.

i really don't understand what the folks objecting to this agreement find so bad about it.

Obama.

also, Republicans are plainly delusional when it comes to how reality works:

“And here is what we have to do: America has to have the most formidable, fierce, military in the history of mankind,” stated Huckabee.

“So when we have a threat, whether it is ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Iranians, whatever it is, we make it very clear that we plan to push back and destroy that threat to us. And we won’t take 10 years doing it, we hopefully won’t even take 10 months, it will be like a 10 day exercise, because the fierceness of our forces would mean that we can absolutely guarantee the outcome of this film. That’s how America needs to operate in the world of foreign affairs, and foreign policy.”

it's only slightly more plausible than McCain's plan to solve the Shia / Sunni schism:

In a small, mirror-paneled room guarded by a Secret Service agent and packed with some of the city’s wealthiest and most influential political donors, Mr. McCain got right to the point.

"One of the things I would do if I were President would be to sit the Shiites and the Sunnis down and say, 'Stop the bullshit,'" said Mr. McCain, according to Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi, an invitee, and two other guests.

So "Kneel before Zod!" wasn't quite as over the top as I thought.

What benefit does the US derive from this deal?
per page #1: "under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-nuclear-deal/398399/

i really don't understand what the folks objecting to this agreement find so bad about it.

Obama.

HSH, that is undoubtedly true for some. But it must be remembered that, when President Reagan signed the treaty on nuclear weapons with the USSR, many of the same folks were horrified that he had sold the nation down the river. And I do mean the same people -- that is, in some cases the same individuals. (I'm looking at you, George Will.)

So it isn't just Obama's permanent suntan here.

"At the ten-year horizon for new civilian power plants, Iran can meet its electricity needs from wind and solar (with natural gas and hydro for backup) at probably half the cost and at much less risk. On a five-year horizon, the nuclear option does not exist at all."
http://www.samefacts.com/2015/07/international-affairs/brazil-and-the-iran-nuclear-deal/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RealityBasedCommunity+%28The+RBC%29&utm_content=FaceBook

The Shiites and Sunnis should refuse to accept unilateral bullshit disarmament until McCain and company deactivate the hundreds of millions of bullshit centrifuges kicking out gigantic visible-from-space clouds of weapons-grade bullshit the Republican Party operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 365 days a year.

Trust, verify, and then bomb them anyway.

Another benefit of this deal for US is a market expansion for conventional weapon made in the USA
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/15/423101307/iran-nuclear-pact-could-spark-buildup-of-conventional-weapons

My favorite unintended consequence of the proposed Iran deal is that it puts all of the old Republican grifters back in business so they can play catch up with their younger pigf*cker brethren.

http://wonkette.com/591367/godly-grifter-jim-bakker-says-iran-deal-means-end-times-please-send-money

Somewhere, more likely below than above, Tanny Faye's eyeliner is liquifying with the gouts of wobbling tears running down her face and into her ample decolletage, eventually to be turned to gold in the collection plate.

@Countme-in -- Talk as much shit about Jim Bakker as you like and I'll join you and buy the first round of brews. But Tammy Faye's post-Jim life, including her powerful defense of LBGTQ rights and her efforts to make evangelical Christianity more open and accepting of gays, deserves respect IMO.

bubbadave, sounds interesting, if you can toss out some links, I'd love to know more.

https://healtheland.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/is-it-judging-to-say-that-homosexuality-endorsing-tammy-faye-bakker-is-in-the-lake-of-fire-and-tbn-has-implicitly-endorsed-homosexuality/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/rainbow-communion-bread-jay-bakker_n_3286533.html

http://www.popmatters.com/column/127749-the-lesson-of-tammy-faye/

BubbaDave:

Thank you informing me of Tammy Faye's involvement in LBGTQ rights and for changing my opinion to some extent.

Apparently, she was a gay icon even before she was a gay rights advocate.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammy_Faye_Messner

I so many ways, I still think she was a silly person, one of many Icons of silliness created by our surreal, exploitative, exhibitionist culture:

From the wikipedia:

"In early 2004, she appeared on the second season of the VH1 reality television series The Surreal Life. The show chronicled a twelve-day period wherein she, Ron Jeremy, Vanilla Ice, Traci Bingham, Erik Estrada and Trishelle Cannatella lived together in a Los Angeles house and were assigned various tasks and activities."

also: In 2005, she appeared in an infomercial for alternative medicine promoter Kevin Trudeau. On her site, Tammyfaye.com she credits green supplements as a helpful part of her initial colon cancer remission.

She participated in so many grifts and gravitated into the orbit of so many grifters, that one's credulousness of her innocent persona can't help but be stretched.

This Kevin Trudeau, one of many evil lying cheats who somehow finds a lucrative home in capitalism, despite its positive attributes:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-03-17/business/chi-kevin-trudeau-sentenced-20140317_1_kevin-trudeau-global-information-network-guzman

He had a gig.

This from Eli Lake:

Under the terms of the final deal, Iran will have at least 24 days before it would be compelled to allow an inspector physical access to a suspected site, a standard that falls short of what most Democrats and Republicans have said would be necessary for a good deal.

24 days notice prior to an inspection of a suspected site.

I have to agree with Navarro,

i really don't understand what the folks objecting to this agreement find so bad about it. it establishes an inspection regime that is both stringent and comprehensive.

Who could ever say that 24 days notice isn't stringent? Seriously.

On the other hand, getting Iran to agree to inspections of their military sites at all was difficult. And while most military technology can be moved within the 24 day window, moving the hardware necessary to nuclear enhancement is less easy. Could they move some of it from military sites during the course of 24 days? Sure. Could they move all of it (thus making it look like there was nothing going on)? Not so likely.

As with any negotiation, what we got is less than we might have wanted. The question that has to be asked, however, is: What might have produced a better outcome in the real world? So far, nobody has made a convincing case. Indeed, the deal that resulted is better than what most experts, military and civilian alike, thought was possible.

What is conveniently left out is the fact that the 24 days apply only to certain sites (in particular certain military installations) and that it is the same for other countries under international inspection. It does not apply to the vast majority of known sites Iran uses for its nuclear program.
Apart from that, I am not an expert but I read that it would not be possible to clean up a place within 24 days, if the kind of work is done there that this deal is meant to put an end to. A bio or chemical weapons lab would be a different matter but nuclear stuff has the habit of leaving traces next to impossible to get rid of (unless you remove the physical building itself).
Plus satellites would monitor suspicious activity hinting at a preemptive clean-up of a site targeted for inspection.

Personally, if I had to bet who's going to violate the terms of the deal first, my money would be on the US. And I strongly suspect that Israel will try to sabotage it by any means fair or foul (with strong support from the Saudis). It's unlikely to survive the full 10 years given the forces put against it.
In case the GOP wins the White House, the whole thing is not worth the paper anyway and we'll see the long-awaited sequel to the glorious Iraq adventure. And when the 'huge nuclear arsenal Iran has amassed and we know exactly the place to look for' is not found, we will hear about all of it having been smuggled in time to a place yet to be named that will be the topic of the next sequel. Why change a winning* strategy?

*politically not militarily

How many days' notice are they held to now?

I'm curious (couldn't find the answer on a cursory Google Search in Bing), but much notice is are Russia and the U.S. given before inspectors may see their respective nuclear sites.

France? Germany? Pakistan? Israel? China?

Tests for nuclear material are *insanely* sensitive. You need something like 6x10^24 atoms of plutonium for one bomb (with super-efficiency, something that newbies lack).

ONE atom of plutonium, and you're BUSTED.

BTW, that ratio of one atom to 6x10^24 is about the same as the ratio of ONE liter of water to the mass of the Earth.

Benjamin Netanyahu the other day unwittingly endorsed the deal by saying it means Iran will be allowed to become a nuclear power in 8 to 10 years.

Just last year and perhaps even more recently, he said Iran would be a nuclear power in months, if not weeks, unless something was done.

In case the GOP wins the White House, and keeps the Senate, the entire world and 73% of the American public will learn never to sign a deal with an American about any promise they make domestic or international.

Even if they could hide everything, hurriedly dismantling a nuclear arms facility would have to be mildly disruptive.

Feh. The people who aren't interested in the actual merits of the deal will find an angle for complaint. I'm fed up with trying to have a reasonable, good-faith discussion. They can all go STFU AFAIAC.

Feh. The people who aren't interested in the merits of the deal just keep saying any deal is better than none. I'm fed up with trying to have a reasonable, good-faith discussion. They can all go STFU AFAIAC.

OK, Marty. Suggest what kind of deal you think would be good enough -- not necessarily good, but good enough. And is achievable in the real world.

I made it pretty clear I didn't think any deal could be made in the real world. And no deal was better than this one. They will have a ballistic nuclear capability in ten years. And be able to say that we agreed to that. There is nothing better about that than no deal. Except I am likely to be dead before then, I guess.

The one reason to scuttle the deal is because pigf&cking Iranian conservatives think it's in their favor, giving their conservative pigf*cking murderous conservative vermin brethren in this country and in Russia and Israel reason to pigcall the dogs of perpetual war on the rest of us.

Conservative pigf*ckers in every country, every society, across the globe work hand in hand to kill the rest of us anyway they can.

And no deal was better than this one. They will have a ballistic nuclear capability in ten years.

so what? a capability is not a nuclear weapon.

And no deal was better than this one.

No deal = they get the bomb sooner. If that is your policy preference, then please state it clearly. If it is not, let's get past the gibberish and lay out your policy preference.

If you say "stronger sanctions" then please explain how that would work, when the sanctions in place so far have demonstrably failed in their policy objective.

If you say "war", well ok. That is an option.

Otherwise, you just seem to be bloviating that you "don't like" Iran. Well, seconding cleek, so what?

I haven't dug into the details of the deal, so I have no opinion about whether it's good, bad, or indifferent.

There are two things I don't understand about the discussion about the deal.

The first thing I don't understand is how "no deal" can be better than any imaginable deal.

No deal most likely means Iran will build itself a nuclear weapon, and will do anything in its power to further harden the facilities it uses to do so.

Any deal short of "oh, you want nuclear weapons, here, have some our ours!" most likely means Iran will not have a nuclear weapon in the near term, and also that there is a basis for discussing the longer term.

Unless folks' expectations for "a deal" were that Iran would roll over and play dead, I'm not seeing the downside to there being a deal. Any deal.

The second thing I don't understand, which is a much broader issue than Iran, is what people think the US is capable of accomplishing through military means.

There appears to be a widespread belief that all we need to do is call in the Marines in order to impose our druthers on anyone, anywhere.

Iran would not respond to military attack by rolling over and playing dead. They will not respond by suddenly realizing they didn't really want a nuke after all. Frankly, we don't know how they would respond.

And however they were to respond, there are 100 other actors with interests in the outcome who would also have things to say and do about it all.

Wars are violent, chaotic shitstorms. When you start a war, you immediately have *fewer*, not more, options available to you, and you immediately have *less*, not more, control over outcomes.

Any f***ing thing can happen.

People who think war is just another option in the diplomatic portfolio are dangerous, irresponsible idiots. I suspect no few of them are straight up nucking futs.

A deal is better than no deal. You can't always get everything you want.

I have the impression (someone please correct me if there is evidence to the contrary) that those who argue for "no deal", or for refusing to ratify this deal, are somehow under the impression that no deal would mean continued sanctions. And that this would put further pressure on Iran, resulting in something better. I suppose that might even be true . . . in a world where the only parties involved were the US and Iran.

But the fact is, the rest of the world is also involved. The reason that sanctions have been so effective is that everybody else is applying them as well -- and has been involved in negotiation this deal. If this deal doesn't get approved by the US, the rest of the world will simply stop applying sanctions.

Presto! Iran gets pretty much full access to the rest of the world economy. Including to any nuclear technology they want to buy. There are no inspections required. In short, Iran gets everything it might want . . . except normalized relations with the US, which is probably not an enormous priority for them.

It is not entirely clear to me how that would be better than this deal. But maybe that is merely failure of imagination on my part. Or a stupid assumption that the US, and/or Israel, could create a military solution. The kind that worked out so enormously well for us in Iraq.

I haven't dug into the details of the deal, so I have no opinion about whether it's good, bad, or indifferent

My impression is that any deal, by definition, is a good deal.

I think "any deal" or "war" is a false choice.

Sanctions are better than war, better than an illusory agreement and better than letting nature take its course, even if sanctions remain a shitty option.

We can argue whether sanctions were successful. I don't think anyone here has the knowledge to assess the sanctions regime against the terms of the agreement.

The tone and tenor of the agreement, of the administration's choice of language vis a vis Iran and the administration's general mind set (tough talk, no action and no more tough talk) concern me.

'Deterrence' is another option. A clear, definitive statement that: "if Iran were to acquire a nuke and either use it or give it to a third party who then used it, then Iran would be deemed to have used its nuke against the US and would face a nuclear response" would be an option.

It wouldn't be credible from this administration perhaps, but it would be an option.

The purpose of sanctions (at least for the rest of the world) was to bring Iran to the negotiating table. In that, they were successful. For the prospects of anything more, should the current deal be rejected by the US, see
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-real-gamblers-on-iran/2015/07/23/f21d2ce0-316b-11e5-8f36-18d1d501920d_story.html?hpid=z2

I think "any deal" or "war" is a false choice.

So do I. But you and I are not the problem.

Tell it to anyone with an (R) after their name who holds national public office.

Sanctions are better than war

I agree. However, apparently sanctions were not sufficient to prevent Iran from moving forward with developing a nuclear weapon.

I don't understand the "tough talk, no action, no more tough talk" thing. To me it looks like "tough talk, deal, no more tough talk", which sounds about right.

It looks to me like you and Marty aren't happy with the terms of the deal. That's completely reasonable. You don't always get everything you want. I doubt Iran did, either.

"No deal would be better than this deal", on the other hand, doesn't make any sense to me.

russell: "No deal would be better than this deal", on the other hand, doesn't make any sense to me.

That sentence could be parsed as: "There exists no X, where X is an element of the set of all achievable deals, that would be better than this deal."

"Yeah, sure," I hear the hawks reply, "'achievable' by this administration. See, this administration's threat even to nuke Iran would not be a credible deterrent, because only a Republican president could be trusted to mean it."

God help us all, in the purity and essence of our natural ... fluids.

--TP

'Deterrence' is another option.

Yes, and as history shows, one that appears to work. However, in order to be, you know, real actual deterrence the other party has to have a couple of bombs, cf North Korea.

So by your logic we could save a lot of time and the costs of an expensive oversight regime and just give them a couple.

We could also issue the same proclamation to Israel, right?

However, in order to be, you know, real actual deterrence the other party has to have a couple of bombs, cf North Korea.

Are you sure? Because I think I can say, "If you get a nuke and if you or someone you give it to uses it, I am going to use a bunch of my nukes on you."

What the hawks want is indefinite militarized confrontation between the United States and Iran.

I believe this post by Robert Farley pretty much captures what the hawks "really want". Funny how they just cannot come right out and say so.

"'Deterrence' is another option. A clear, definitive statement that: "if Iran were to acquire a nuke and either use it or give it to a third party who then used it, then Iran would be deemed to have used its nuke against the US and would face a nuclear response" would be an option.

It wouldn't be credible from this administration perhaps, but it would be an option."

I can't think why Vladimir Putin hasn't launched his remaining nuclear payload yet, now that he's read that comment. It's been more than two hours already.

I didn't expect that American conservatives would have to find the head of Osama Bin Laden in their beds and his body dumped in their front yards to serve as proof of Barack Obama's manhood, or whatever terms conservatives think they understand as evidence.

I wish Obama's press conferences consisted of little more than him unzipping and showing us his cock and then a polite "thank you, Mr. President" from FOX news.

C'mon, McTX.

Are you sure?

In the context of the usage of the word in the international relations arena during the atomic era, absolutely yes. This coupled with your use of the connecting "and" in your statement of the concept instead of the word "or" pretty much confirms to me my certainty in this regard.

I mean, you wrote that, I assume? But on that I could be wrong. :)

Funny how they just cannot come right out and say so.

Scanning over the link, and the links it contains, etc: it seems that Farley's case is they are coming out and saying so.

Well, not in so many words.

Still, Farley, elsewhere, seems to ignore that if Iran gains the ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon, it could make such things available to groups who would otherwise be unable to attain and use them.

It's almost as if there are blind spots to be pointed out all around.

I can't think why Vladimir Putin hasn't launched his remaining nuclear payload yet, now that he's read that comment. It's been more than two hours already.

I'm not sure I'm getting your point. Obama has threatened with red lines and game changers and all kinds of stuff and, when called on it, has done nothing.

Nothing may well be the right call, but it makes all the blah, blah look silly.

Obama drew a red line at Assad using chemical weapons and then wimped out when Assad crossed it. That seems to be a popular meme on the right.

Let's go to the transcript, shall we?

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. ... I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people's representatives in Congress.
The Kenyan usurper was obviously being disingenuous in that first sentence. His mealy-mouthed deference to a Congress full of chickenhawks was just a ploy to make America look weak. And the confiscation and destruction of boatloads of actual chemical weapons from Syria was nothing but a concession to Putin, whose leadership style makes many on the right swoon with envy.

That America has survived nearly 7 years without Lindsey Graham, Ann Coulter, or Dr. Strangelove in the White House must be proof of God's grace on a feckless nation.

--TP

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad