, what's your opinion of what to do the first time they stop someone from investigating one of their many secret military bases?
The sanctions go back, its tough to grasp I know. Its very complex, but you sign a treaty, you break it, the treaty no longer is in effect and you face the consequences.
Quote:
Please get it threw your thick skull, Iran's leadership is bent on being the supreme power in the middle east, they have been fk'n around for years now with their delaying and BS, if you really trust that this weak assed Obama lead "treaty" will stop them I can't help you.
Unlike Saudi Arabia, they have no ambitions of leading the middle east, nor supporting terrorist groups that are a threat to the US and the west. Thankfully only Iran is a threat.
So by signing an agreement where we get to monitor, and stop their nuclear ambitions, we made a HUGE mistake, because the solution is clear. We should invade Iran, or at least bomb them.
This treaty by "Obama" is being hailed by almost all of the world. You know who are not celebrating, Israel, right wingers in EU, and the US. These are the people who we should trust because when it comes to foreign policy, fear and aggression are terrific ways to deal with an issue.
I guess my concerns are around a couple of major points.
The inability to flash inspect sites that are non-designate. So even if the inspectors hear a rumor of research or enrichment happening on a site that's not on the list of agreed upon inspection sites, they can't drive open and take a look. From my understanding and I'm probably wording it wrong, they have to submit basically a request almost like a grievance and Iran has 30 days to approve it.
The other question or clarification is that the Iranians' are allowed to keep a set number of centrifuges, and allow to research the technology to create better enrichment devices, so if this deal falls apart after 5-10 years there's' a possibility that Iran would be in a better position in terms of enrichment.
The only other clarification that I would need to understand is around the trading of enriched materials for natural materials and what that ratio is. I probably would have been more comfortable if the agreement was the trading of their enriched stock for fuel rods for their priamry energy generating reactors instead of giving them a stockpile of a material that Iran doesn't have a great deal of naturally.
In terms of whether this will bolster the Liberal section of the population or the religious sector that supports the Ayatollahs , we'll wait to see, I'm pretty sure that this will be promoted as a massive victory over the great Satan and the Lesser Satans, and everyone loves a winner, they will probably see an increas in their overall popularity.
Especially with their own demographic.
I would have liked to see the clamp down on Iran's abilities to develop their own or procure ballistic missile technology as part of an overarching agreement concerning the development of a nuclear weapons program as well.
It will be interesting to watch the hearings on this agreement, Obama is going to have to do a sell job, from my understanding there are concerns that not all democrats are on board with this. My prediction is that he will be forced to use his veto.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
The thing is, they could have included a lot of stuff in the negotiations but it would have taken 5 years to come up with a deal rather than 1.
I watched the interviews with Kerry and Zarif afterwards and they both said they solely focused on nuclear negotiations and nothing off-topic so as to speed up the process.
In my glass-half-full opinion, this is better than nothing and atleast a step forward.
The fallout over Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's controversial remarks on the Iran nuclear deal has now reached Israel.
Over the weekend, Huckabee derided the deal announced in Vienna between six world powers and Iran, saying it would "take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven." The comments, which invoked the Holocaust in criticizing the agreement — it restricts Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief — earned swift condemnation from the Anti-Defamation League, comedian Jon Stewart and congressional Democrats, as well as President Obama.
Huckabee, as my colleague Jose A. DelReal noted, made hay with the controversy, responding to Obama's censure with a new attack on the president's supposed blindness to the real threat that Iran poses.
Criticism now, though, has come from a constituency the former Arkansas governor would probably be less inclined to offend: Israel.
Something not a lot of people know or forget about is there is constant monitoring of radiation levels in the atmosphere around the world. It isn't actually that easy to get away with testing and radiation releases even if you don't allow inspectors on the ground. Even a medical isotope facility who has a very minor release that isn't even close to causing any sort of environmental affects is picked up.
And in the end some inspectors on the ground is far better than no inspectors on the ground. Which is what is happening right now.
I think this is Huckabee just trying to get attention by saying something outlandish so that he can remain relelvant in the Republican primaries and make it to the first debate. He's using the Trump strategy. Even a prominent US Jewish organization told Huckabee that he's being ridiculous.
__________________
The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they
The Following User Says Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
The sanctions go back, its tough to grasp I know. Its very complex, but you sign a treaty, you break it, the treaty no longer is in effect and you face the consequences.
That's not how it works, I don't believe there is a quick mechanism to force inspections of a designated site via bringing the sanctions back in.
From my understanding the inspectors need to submit a request and the request can take up to 23 days for the Iranians to approve it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Thanks for the video Thor, but even you have to admit that there are questions in this agreement that are going to be heavily scrutinized
1) The 24 day request to inspect, which means that if there is a suspicious site that hasn't been disclosed Iran has the ability to delay any inspection for up to 24 days.
2) There is only one penalty for violations no matter how big or small and that's the snap back of sanctions, however its unlikely that a snap back happens because of that unless the violation is fairly significant. While it sounds like a big hammer, it gives the ability for Iran to approach a line with violations but not pass them because the UN Security Council which is fractured at the best of times is unlikely to reach a consensus on implementing a snap back. In other words there's not a scaled of punishment based around the scale of the infraction.
3) speaking of snap back, if I understand it right from the agreement, between the removal of sanctions and lets say a snap back any contracts signed in that time frame will be protected from the sanctions. I would expect that Iran will go nuts in signing agreements, because those will all be protected. You'll get a snap back but it will be dramatically watered down. Also, if there is a snap back the text in the agreement, basically states that Iran is free to interpret that as the removal of any commitments and restrictions of the agreement, because of that wording, Iran can feel pretty confident that the Snapback really won't be imposed unless its a pretty big violation.
4) No new nuclear based sanctions can be imposed by the United States or its partners under the agreement, which removes a pretty big diplomatic hammer.
5) I think that there will be some discomfort on the removal of the conventional arms embargo in year 5, and the ability for Iran to start purchasing ballistic missile technology in year 8.
6) I can understand why Arab States for example and Israel aren't happy with the deal. For the Arab States for example they can point at Tehran's support of the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Irans long support for other terrorist groups in Syria, and Lebanon etc and point to what a strengthened, Iranian economy with access to billions of dollars in formerly frozen assets and the eventual removal of their conventional weapons embargos is capable of.
For Israel more then the bomb issue, its the wording around the US and its partner working with Iran to strengthen its economy, and technology base that's concerning.
I'm not saying its a terrible deal, I'm not saying its a great deal, it falls somewhere in between, and its really written as a 10 year solution. At the end of the 10 years, there doesn't seem to be a lot of incentive for the Iranians to continue it. It rightfully does need to be scrutinized before being approved, though it seems unlikely that its going to be stopped as this president see this as his legacy in Foreign Policy and will enact his veto if his opponents attempt to kill it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
If a country REALLY wants to have nuclear weapons they will probably have nuclear weapons. No amount of sanctions can stop that as demonstrated by North Korea.
I also don't believe that a nuclear armed Iran would suddenly attempt to destroy Isreal.
If a country REALLY wants to have nuclear weapons they will probably have nuclear weapons. No amount of sanctions can stop that as demonstrated by North Korea.
I also don't believe that a nuclear armed Iran would suddenly attempt to destroy Isreal.
I don't think the immediate threat is to Israel at all. The bigger issue is if Iran gets one, Saudi Arabia gets one, then Turkey gets one, then Egypt gets one, and so on.. the whole area is one giant power struggle. I'd also worry about instability in Iran, and the weapon getting into the wrong hands after some kind of violent revolution.
The whole deal at this point is really for show anyways. Iran is only a few months at most from a weapon, and if they really wanted one they could have one before the inspectors knew what was up.
The bigger issue for the USA and Saudi Arabia is opening up Iran's economy again. This could give groups like the Houthis, Hezbollah, Assad, etc..a major surge. With Assad looking to be losing the war, maybe the USA is counting on that?
The Following User Says Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Is war a video game to you T@T? Have you stopped for even a second to contemplate the implications of "bomb them to the stone-age"?
Of course it's not a game, But Iran has shown over the years they are not to be trusted, they fund and supply terrorists, repeatedly call on the destruction of Israel, repeatedly spread hate towards the west and break every human rights violation on the planet. How would you like living next door to neighbors like this?
It's simply, they must not be allowed to become a nuclear power, if they did the whole middle east will become nuclear.. including the terrorists.
Stone age? The next group of planes won't be flying into buildings, they'll be exploding over our cities, and remember, todays nukes make Hiroshima's look like firecrackers.
Thanks for the video Thor, but even you have to admit that there are questions in this agreement that are going to be heavily scrutinized
Of course, its not a perfect deal by any means. But the fear mongering going on about the deal is over the top. It all comes down to what is the option if not to reach this agreement, which was hard fought by many nations, this isn't like the US media seems to think, a US deal with Iran.
The alternative is bad, and we all know the hawks wan't to take an aggressive approach to Iran, possibly including air strikes and eventually a war. We have seen how much blow back the Iraq war has created, with the chaos in the middle east, more radicalization, more terrorists.. If we went the same route with Iran, we will have plenty more chaos.
Quote:
I'm not saying its a terrible deal, I'm not saying its a great deal, it falls somewhere in between, and its really written as a 10 year solution. At the end of the 10 years, there doesn't seem to be a lot of incentive for the Iranians to continue it. It rightfully does need to be scrutinized before being approved, though it seems unlikely that its going to be stopped as this president see this as his legacy in Foreign Policy and will enact his veto if his opponents attempt to kill it.
Yeah its hard to say how this will turn out, I am optimistic because of what we know about Iran's people, its young people. This is a society dying to become more westernized. The agreement takes away a lot of the propaganda the hardliners use, to blame all the problems of their people on the evil west.
Youth is the largest population bloc in Iran. Over 60 percent of Iran’s 73 million people are under 30 years old.
Iranian youth are among the most politically active in the 57 nations of the Islamic world. As the most restive segment of Iranian society, the young also represent one of the greatest long-term threats to the current form of theocratic rule.
Young activists have influenced the Islamic Republic’s political agenda since 1997. After the 2009 presidential election, youth was the biggest bloc involved in the region’s first sustained “people power” movement for democratic change, creating a new political dynamic in the Middle East.
The Islamic Republic forcibly regained control over the most rebellious sector of society through detentions, expulsions from universities, and expanding the powers of its own young paramilitary forces.
But youth demands have not changed, and anger seethes deeply beneath the surface. The regime also remains vulnerable because it has failed to address basic socio-economic problems among the young.
The young people of Iran are the ones celebrating this agreement and this is what frustrates me, that the cynics in the west seem oblivious to this youth movement that aligns more with us in the West and is eager to see change and removal of a theocracy.
By an agreement like this, we choose to support them. By not finding an agreement we just strengthen the position of the hardliners and allow them to continue with business as usual.
Just by listening to the passionate youth of Iran speaking on their future, I can't help but be excited about the possibility of Iran moving away from theocracy and becoming friendly to the west. But we can just as easily change that by following the right wing desire to bomb, invade and take aggressive action against them. If we go that route, we help turn the youth into anti-american youth who will support the hard liners, and yet again lose a massive opportunity to reach a generation that will be in charge of this nation in the upcoming 2 decades.
