US swaps Saudi for Iran

Salt USMC

Intel
SOF Support
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
3,232
Location
Washington, DC
Folks, we got an incredibly good deal, by the looks of it. Unprecedented inspection access, conversion of Fordow, reduction of LEU stockpile, fixed number of 1st gen centrifuges, Arak gets an entirely new core (this is really big!), phased sanction relief, sanctions related to terrorism and human rights stay in place. The inspection access alone would have been a really positive step forward, but the sheer amount of concessions that we got from Iran are just incredible.

I'm going to say something very controversial. A lot has been said about how bad John Kerry has been at the SecState position. And I totally agree. Until today, he had basically done nothing and been pretty worthless at the position. But, if this deal becomes finalized and congress approves it, I believe that it will have such a profound impact that he will go down in the history books as one of the US' greatest diplomats. Calling it now.

Anyway, here's the big list of stuff:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/04/240170.htm
Below are the key parameters of a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear program that were decided in Lausanne, Switzerland. These elements form the foundation upon which the final text of the JCPOA will be written between now and June 30, and reflect the significant progress that has been made in discussions between the P5+1, the European Union, and Iran. Important implementation details are still subject to negotiation, and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We will work to conclude the JCPOA based on these parameters over the coming months.

Enrichment

  • Iran has agreed to reduce by approximately two-thirds its installed centrifuges. Iran will go from having about 19,000 installed today to 6,104 installed under the deal, with only 5,060 of these enriching uranium for 10 years. All 6,104 centrifuges will be IR-1s, Iran’s first-generation centrifuge.
  • Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium over 3.67 percent for at least 15 years.
  • Iran has agreed to reduce its current stockpile of about 10,000 kg of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to 300 kg of 3.67 percent LEU for 15 years.
  • All excess centrifuges and enrichment infrastructure will be placed in IAEA monitored storage and will be used only as replacements for operating centrifuges and equipment.
  • Iran has agreed to not build any new facilities for the purpose of enriching uranium for 15 years.
  • Iran’s breakout timeline – the time that it would take for Iran to acquire enough fissile material for one weapon – is currently assessed to be 2 to 3 months. That timeline will be extended to at least one year, for a duration of at least ten years, under this framework.
Iran will convert its facility at Fordow so that it is no longer used to enrich uranium

  • Iran has agreed to not enrich uranium at its Fordow facility for at least 15 years.
  • Iran has agreed to convert its Fordow facility so that it is used for peaceful purposes only – into a nuclear, physics, technology, research center.
  • Iran has agreed to not conduct research and development associated with uranium enrichment at Fordow for 15 years.
  • Iran will not have any fissile material at Fordow for 15 years.
  • Almost two-thirds of Fordow’s centrifuges and infrastructure will be removed. The remaining centrifuges will not enrich uranium. All centrifuges and related infrastructure will be placed under IAEA monitoring.

Iran will only enrich uranium at the Natanz facility, with only 5,060 IR-1 first-generation centrifuges for ten years.

  • Iran has agreed to only enrich uranium using its first generation (IR-1 models) centrifuges at Natanz for ten years, removing its more advanced centrifuges.
  • Iran will remove the 1,000 IR-2M centrifuges currently installed at Natanz and place them in IAEA monitored storage for ten years.
  • Iran will not use its IR-2, IR-4, IR-5, IR-6, or IR-8 models to produce enriched uranium for at least ten years. Iran will engage in limited research and development with its advanced centrifuges, according to a schedule and parameters which have been agreed to by the P5+1.
  • For ten years, enrichment and enrichment research and development will be limited to ensure a breakout timeline of at least 1 year. Beyond 10 years, Iran will abide by its enrichment and enrichment R&D plan submitted to the IAEA, and pursuant to the JCPOA, under the Additional Protocol resulting in certain limitations on enrichment capacity.
Inspections and Transparency

  • The IAEA will have regular access to all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, including to Iran’s enrichment facility at Natanz and its former enrichment facility at Fordow, and including the use of the most up-to-date, modern monitoring technologies.
  • Inspectors will have access to the supply chain that supports Iran’s nuclear program. The new transparency and inspections mechanisms will closely monitor materials and/or components to prevent diversion to a secret program.
  • Inspectors will have access to uranium mines and continuous surveillance at uranium mills, where Iran produces yellowcake, for 25 years.
  • Inspectors will have continuous surveillance of Iran’s centrifuge rotors and bellows production and storage facilities for 20 years. Iran’s centrifuge manufacturing base will be frozen and under continuous surveillance.
  • All centrifuges and enrichment infrastructure removed from Fordow and Natanz will be placed under continuous monitoring by the IAEA.
  • A dedicated procurement channel for Iran’s nuclear program will be established to monitor and approve, on a case by case basis, the supply, sale, or transfer to Iran of certain nuclear-related and dual use materials and technology – an additional transparency measure.
  • Iran has agreed to implement the Additional Protocol of the IAEA, providing the IAEA much greater access and information regarding Iran’s nuclear program, including both declared and undeclared facilities.
  • Iran will be required to grant access to the IAEA to investigate suspicious sites or allegations of a covert enrichment facility, conversion facility, centrifuge production facility, or yellowcake production facility anywhere in the country.
  • Iran has agreed to implement Modified Code 3.1 requiring early notification of construction of new facilities.
  • Iran will implement an agreed set of measures to address the IAEA’s concerns regarding the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) of its program.
Reactors and Reprocessing

  • Iran has agreed to redesign and rebuild a heavy water research reactor in Arak, based on a design that is agreed to by the P5+1, which will not produce weapons grade plutonium, and which will support peaceful nuclear research and radioisotope production.
  • The original core of the reactor, which would have enabled the production of significant quantities of weapons-grade plutonium, will be destroyed or removed from the country.
  • Iran will ship all of its spent fuel from the reactor out of the country for the reactor’s lifetime.
  • Iran has committed indefinitely to not conduct reprocessing or reprocessing research and development on spent nuclear fuel.
  • Iran will not accumulate heavy water in excess of the needs of the modified Arak reactor, and will sell any remaining heavy water on the international market for 15 years.
  • Iran will not build any additional heavy water reactors for 15 years.
Sanctions

  • Iran will receive sanctions relief, if it verifiably abides by its commitments.
  • U.S. and E.U. nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended after the IAEA has verified that Iran has taken all of its key nuclear-related steps. If at any time Iran fails to fulfill its commitments, these sanctions will snap back into place.
  • The architecture of U.S. nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be retained for much of the duration of the deal and allow for snap-back of sanctions in the event of significant non-performance.
  • All past UN Security Council resolutions on the Iran nuclear issue will be lifted simultaneous with the completion, by Iran, of nuclear-related actions addressing all key concerns (enrichment, Fordow, Arak, PMD, and transparency).
  • However, core provisions in the UN Security Council resolutions – those that deal with transfers of sensitive technologies and activities – will be re-established by a new UN Security Council resolution that will endorse the JCPOA and urge its full implementation. It will also create the procurement channel mentioned above, which will serve as a key transparency measure. Important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, as well as provisions that allow for related cargo inspections and asset freezes, will also be incorporated by this new resolution.
  • A dispute resolution process will be specified, which enables any JCPOA participant, to seek to resolve disagreements about the performance of JCPOA commitments.
  • If an issue of significant non-performance cannot be resolved through that process, then all previous UN sanctions could be re-imposed.
  • U.S. sanctions on Iran for terrorism, human rights abuses, and ballistic missiles will remain in place under the deal.
Phasing

  • For ten years, Iran will limit domestic enrichment capacity and research and development – ensuring a breakout timeline of at least one year. Beyond that, Iran will be bound by its longer-term enrichment and enrichment research and development plan it shared with the P5+1.
  • For fifteen years, Iran will limit additional elements of its program. For instance, Iran will not build new enrichment facilities or heavy water reactors and will limit its stockpile of enriched uranium and accept enhanced transparency procedures.
  • Important inspections and transparency measures will continue well beyond 15 years. Iran’s adherence to the Additional Protocol of the IAEA is permanent, including its significant access and transparency obligations. The robust inspections of Iran’s uranium supply chain will last for 25 years.
  • Even after the period of the most stringent limitations on Iran’s nuclear program, Iran will remain a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits Iran’s development or acquisition of nuclear weapons and requires IAEA safeguards on its nuclear program.
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,799
Location
San Antonio Texas
Folks, we got an incredibly good deal, by the looks of it. Unprecedented inspection access, conversion of Fordow, reduction of LEU stockpile, fixed number of 1st gen centrifuges, Arak gets an entirely new core (this is really big!), phased sanction relief, sanctions related to terrorism and human rights stay in place. The inspection access alone would have been a really positive step forward, but the sheer amount of concessions that we got from Iran are just incredible.

I'm going to say something very controversial. A lot has been said about how bad John Kerry has been at the SecState position. And I totally agree. Until today, he had basically done nothing and been pretty worthless at the position. But, if this deal becomes finalized and congress approves it, I believe that it will have such a profound impact that he will go down in the history books as one of the US' greatest diplomats. Calling it now.

Anyway, here's the big list of stuff:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/04/240170.htm
IF, big IF; the Iranians actually comply.
 

Gunz

Combined Action
Verified Military
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
7,795
Location
Decisive Terrain
...Getting a deal done and easing trade sanctions would open up Iran to world markets, which would force adoption of the standards of the international community...

DM, I'm leery of this precisely because it's the exact same strategy Clinton and his advisors based their China policy on: open the PRC to the world markets and human rights, freedom of expression and perhaps even democracy would soon follow. That has not happened and was a major miscalculation. In fact our stores and homes are filled with cheap Chinese goods in return for billions of $, the loss of American manufacturing jobs and the sharing of satellite technology. The PRC is considered by many to still present a significant military threat and the oppression of political opponents continues.

Given the Iran's brutal track record, I doubt it will be any more--and probably less--receptive of adopting the standards of the international community.

I can't share your optimism and enthusiasm for this diplomatic breakthrough because I am convinced it is a false triumph. IMO, the Iranians want more than anything else nuclear weapons parity with Israel and no paper agreement is going to derail that ambition. They will continue covertly to work toward this goal.
 
Last edited:

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
16,712
Location
Not Afghanistan
Two generic problems with any diplomacy:
1. Party A living up to its side of the bargain.
2. Party B punishing Party A when A does not live up to its side of the bargain.

On paper this looks like a good thing, but reality is yet to be seen.
 

Salt USMC

Intel
SOF Support
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
3,232
Location
Washington, DC
DM, I'm leery of this precisely because it's the exact same strategy Clinton and his advisors based their China policy on: open the PRC to the world markets and human rights, freedom of expression and perhaps even democracy would soon follow. That has not happened and was a major miscalculation. In fact our stores and homes are filled with cheap Chinese goods in return for the loss of American manufacturing jobs and the sharing of satellite technology. The PRC is considered by many to still present a significant military threat and the oppression of political opponents continues.

Given the Iran's brutal track record, I doubt it will be any more--and probably less--receptive of adopting the standards of the international community.

You're right about China - our foreign policy towards them has not produced the kind of end result that we wanted, yet. Though I suspect that that's due in large part to NAFTA and China's incredible economic gains in the last 20 years. I'm not an expert at all on the subject but I doubt the experts in 1994 thought, "You know, China is going to be a super big deal in the next millenium. Maybe even the biggest deal." This deal with Iran is not a trade agreement, but rather a return to the baseline (if there ever was a baseline). Is it going to fix Iran's human rights record overnight? Of course not. Over 10 years? Probably not. 20 years? Maybe. Hell, we aren't even sure if Khameini will outlive this deal. Frankly, I am less-worried about fixing their human rights record and support to terrorism RIGHT NOW than beginning to solve the nuclear issue. Those issues can't even begin to be addressed (by the United States, at least) until relations have normalized. In the meantime, we are doing the prudent thing by continuing sanctions related to those issues. Once the US and Iran bump fists and achieve normal or even semi-normal relations, THEN we can start to say "So uhhh......how about that Hizb'allah? And hey, Hamas? Could you, ya know, stop supporting them?" I think that part of the problem is we still treat Iran as if it were under Ahmedinejad. That's a dangerous way of thinking: the trend established by Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami was looking pretty good for a while. The covert nuclear program was even stopped in 2003, even after Bush made that incredibly, ridiculously stupid "Axis of Evil" speech. Ahmedinejad did an abrupt about-face on the policy and we responded in kind.

As a side note, the election of Ahmedinejad was kind of unprecedented (though that's not saying a whole lot in a country with not much in the way of Presidential precedent), because he was the first President not to have some sort of religious education background. He was a populist candidate who made his mark as mayor of Tehran. That he rolled back significant reforms as mayor should have been a big, flashing neon sign that he was planning to steer hard to the right.

I want the general audience here to consider two things: 1) This deal not only increases the amount of access that the international community has, but reduces Iran's enriched materials AND enrichment rate and capacity. The effect of this is that detecting a bomb-in-progress will be easier, but the breakout time from from assemblage of material (generally cited as around 25kg of HEU) to a final bomb increases dramatically, giving the international community a larger buffer. What do we get with no deal? Less access, and a shorter breakout time.
2) It would ease the collective trauma of Iranians about the 1953 coup. This is kind of academic so bear with me. A contemporary Iranian professor told me the other day that Iranians have a long cultural memory, with a history of collective trauma but into their culture. This trauma stretches back all the way to the martyrdom of Hossein at the hands of Yazid, of which the collective guilt associated with it manifests itself during the celebration of Ashura during the month of Muharram. Because of this, old events have a recency to Persians that are difficult to understand to us. Honestly, it's still a difficult concept to me, and this is the stuff that I study. This professor said, "To Iranians, even those who weren't born yet, the revolution seems like it happened yesterday. The coup (the US/British overthrow of Mossadegh) happened the day before." Sanctions and US military action serve as constant reminders of that , He (and others) have speculated that this psychic trauma could be one of the reasons why Iran adopts such an aggressive defensive posture. This is a large part of the reason why "Death to America" has effectively become a T-shirt slogan. Along with that, it should be noted that contemporary Iran has never attacked another country. The country HAS supported groups conducting attacks, but has never overtly attacked another country. I am in no way saying that their covert support is justified, but that the USE of a nuclear weapon, an incredibly overt act, is not in keeping with their national character. We only need to look back back to the Iran/Iraq war for support: despite Iraq's continued use of chemical weapon assaults during the conflict, Khomeini reportedly refused to retaliate with weapons of their own. This has been disputed, but never conclusively disproven. Anyway, the point is that this manner of deal and an easing of relations might engender a cultural shift in Iran that could potentially make the country's current hedgehog defense less palatable to future politicians.

I also ask this of the deal-doubters: what, if anything, do we gain by maintaining the status quo and having no deal at all? I posit again that this deal, if passed, does not prevent us from using military strikes in the future. If anything, it allow future Presidents to make a STRONGER case to the UN and regional powers that a military strike is valid. "See? We put a bit of trust in Iran and they flipped the bird at us. This time it's really not cool, okay?"

We are placing trust in the Iranians and they are placing a smidgen of trust in us (and, by extension, the international community). This is a big breakthrough and should give anyone a reason for optimism.
 

Brill

SOF Support
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
4,896
Location
221B Baker St
Folks, we got an incredibly good deal, by the looks of it.

Jesus @Deathy McDeath , "learn a book" (from a SNL skit) and read the Munich Agreement. :p

4:15 is the crux of the lesson.


The Iranians clearly understand that this Administration will not intervene militarily WHEN violate the terms of the agreement. "The entire world will see."

So this is Russia invades Ukraine part 2? Sanctions...big whoop. Or is the chem wep usage in Syria a demonstration that POTUS is for reelz???

"Stop or I'll say stop again" can be a foreign policy but probably not very effective...unless you want more stability like Somalia, Nigeria, Yemen, Libya (Obama fucking OWNS that shit show), etc.

Deatht to America and all that crap is a way to rally the people against a common enemy. If the Persians are pissed at us then they're not pissed at the Iranian government for their own failed domestic policies. It's population control. Enough of the "International Apology Tour". Iranian religious and "political" leaders (is there a difference???) could easily resolve this like the calm Libya experienced prior to the Arab Spring. Give up your bad shit and we can be friends.

You can't lead from a golf course and wear dad jeans if you want to be taken seriously on the World Stage.
 
Last edited:

Gunz

Combined Action
Verified Military
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
7,795
Location
Decisive Terrain
@Deathly McDeath, I gave you a "like" for your prodigious typing :thumbsup: and indeed for raising a number of worthy points. However my misgivings about the deal are firm. The White House spin is exactly that, positive spin on concessions that we had to make in order to put ink on paper, like conceeding 5,000 centrifuges, far more than we'd wanted. And centrifuge activity is difficult to detect with technology. The only way to detect cheating would be through HUMINT. Not only that, but the deal has implications that effect the entire ME, and not all Gulf states are happy about it, particularly the Saudis.

Again, my personal view is that Kerry was played like a fiddle. But I commend your reasoned argument.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,362
Location
CONUS
Before the deal:
US: "Hey, we can be friends now!"
Iran: "Death to America!"

After the deal:
US: "Hey we made a great deal! Umm... right, Iran?"
Iran: "Death to America!"

Looks like we're off to a great start! :thumbsup:
 

Scotth

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
1,496
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Everyone can complain about this and that about the nuke deal with Iran.

What's your alternative other than complaining? If we go down the road with no deal where does that lead to?

Bombing isn't a real option. Israel isn't going to bomb Iran, they don't have the capability, or they would have done it a decade ago. Bush had his chance and didn't. Obama isn't going to do it and neither will the next President regardless of who gets elected because there is no will for it in the country.

We have two choices make a deal and see what happens or don't make a deal and we all know how that story will end.
 

Brill

SOF Support
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
4,896
Location
221B Baker St
Everyone can complain about this and that about the nuke deal with Iran.

What's your alternative other than complaining? If we go down the road with no deal where does that lead to?

Bombing isn't a real option. Israel isn't going to bomb Iran, they don't have the capability, or they would have done it a decade ago. Bush had his chance and didn't. Obama isn't going to do it and neither will the next President regardless of who gets elected because there is no will for it in the country.

We have two choices make a deal and see what happens or don't make a deal and we all know how that story will end.

That logic sure sounds like "we have to pass it in order to see what's in it".

Are you saying that Iran was closer to a nuke 10 years ago??? If sanctions are NOT working, what was the catalyst that made Iran sit down with "the great Satan" for talks to begin with?

You're assertion that Israel will not attack Iran (overtly or covertly) to preserve their way of life is fundamentally flawed.
 

Scotth

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
1,496
Location
Minneapolis, MN
That logic sure sounds like "we have to pass it in order to see what's in it".

Are you saying that Iran was closer to a nuke 10 years ago??? If sanctions are NOT working, what was the catalyst that made Iran sit down with "the great Satan" for talks to begin with?

You're assertion that Israel will not attack Iran (overtly or covertly) to preserve their way of life is fundamentally flawed.

While your first response was a cute comeback you kind of made my point on my first question.

"What's your alternative other than complaining?" Do you have an answer?

Since you don't like Obama's solution and offer no other solution what is the answer to my second question of maintaining the status quo?

Nobody said Iran was closer to creating a nuke ten years ago. They're nuke program was much smaller 10 years ago and the job of taking it out through a bombing campaign WOULD'VE been much easier 10 years ago though.

I never asserted Israel wouldn't defend themselves to preserve their country but attacking Iran to take out there nuke program isn't happening. I have more then 2 decades of history backing up that point of view. A bombing campaign at best delays the final outcome. You either make a deal or they will eventually become nuclear. Bush thought he could sanction North Korea into a better deal and how did that turn out. Eventually, Iran will act like North Korea and say screw you and go nuclear.

Better to make a deal that has Russia and China and Europe all involved. If the deal goes south not only does Iran walk away, but both China and Russia walk away from Iranian sanctions as well. China starts buying up all of Iran's oil like they want to, Russia goes back to doing what they want and the European's will fight for Iran oil as well so they have to import less Russian oil. Do you think US sanctions alone are going to stop Iran from going nuclear some where in the future? At least now, if Iran goes back on the deal it forces the Russian's and Chinese to put sanctions back on Iran.
 
Last edited:

Brill

SOF Support
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
4,896
Location
221B Baker St
While your first response was a cute comeback you kind of made my point on my first question.:p

"What's your alternative other than complaining?" Do you have an answer?
Complaining or expressing First Amendment rights? O_o What's wrong with continued sanctions and international isolation? Why a deal now? How does the status quo HURT the US?

Since you don't like Obama's solution and offer no other solution what is the answer to my second question of maintaining the status quo?
Status quo is an answer and so far a good policy: got them to the table didn't it?

Nobody said Iran was closer to creating a nuke ten years ago. They're nuke program was much smaller 10 years ago and the job of taking it out through a bombing campaign WOULD'VE been much easier 10 years ago though.

I never asserted Israel wouldn't defend themselves to preserve their country but attacking Iran to take out there nuke program isn't happening. I have more then 2 decades of history backing up that point of view. A bombing campaign at best delays the final outcome. You either make a deal or they will eventually become nuclear. Bush thought he could sanction North Korea into a better deal and how did that turn out. Eventually, Iran will act like North Korea and say screw you and go nuclear.
Iran's infrastructure is completely different than NK. I do not know but I assume that a virus could work in Iran whereas probably not in NK.

Better to make a deal that has Russia and China and Europe all involved. If the deal goes south not only does Iran walk away both China and Russia walk as well.
You may want to research Russian-Iranian relations...especially when they just signed a 15 year bilateral military agreement that will go into effect upon lifting of sanctions.

According to Sputnik News, [Iranian] defense minister Hossein Dehghan is quoted as saying that during bilateral discussions, “the importance of the need to develop Russia and Iran’s cooperation in the joint struggle against meddling in the affairs of the region by external forces that are not part of it was framed.” Dehghan noted that they singled out the U.S. policy that “meddles in the domestic affairs of other countries” as a major reason for the deteriorating security situation in the Middle East and the rest of the world today.

According to the Associated Press, Dehghan furthermore emphasized that, “Iran and Russia are able to confront the expansionist intervention and greed of the United States through cooperation, synergy and activating strategic potential capacities. … As two neighbors, Iran and Russia have common viewpoints toward political, regional and global issues.”

China starts buying up all of Iran's oil like they want to, Russia goes back to doing what they want and the European's will fight for Iran oil as well so they have to import less Russian oil.
And how. Like pulling out of the Cooperative Threat Reduction treaty?

Do you think US sanctions alone are going to stop Iran from going nuclear some where in the future. At least now, if Iran goes back on the deal it forces the Russian's and Chinese to put sanctions back on Iran.

Disagree. No need to make an unenforceable deal. If there are other elements that necessitate an agreement, why not let Congress in on the terms and enact a valid treaty and not a deal that will not be limited to the current President? If the terms really are that good and enable world peace, isn't that something the ENTIRE nation could get behind instead of the typical partisan politics of "my elephant can beat up your donkey"?
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,799
Location
San Antonio Texas
While your first response was a cute comeback you kind of made my point on my first question.

"What's your alternative other than complaining?" Do you have an answer?

Since you don't like Obama's solution and offer no other solution what is the answer to my second question of maintaining the status quo?

Nobody said Iran was closer to creating a nuke ten years ago. They're nuke program was much smaller 10 years ago and the job of taking it out through a bombing campaign WOULD'VE been much easier 10 years ago though.

I never asserted Israel wouldn't defend themselves to preserve their country but attacking Iran to take out there nuke program isn't happening. I have more then 2 decades of history backing up that point of view. A bombing campaign at best delays the final outcome. You either make a deal or they will eventually become nuclear. Bush thought he could sanction North Korea into a better deal and how did that turn out. Eventually, Iran will act like North Korea and say screw you and go nuclear.

Better to make a deal that has Russia and China and Europe all involved. If the deal goes south not only does Iran walk away, but both China and Russia walk away from Iranian sanctions as well. China starts buying up all of Iran's oil like they want to, Russia goes back to doing what they want and the European's will fight for Iran oil as well so they have to import less Russian oil. Do you think US sanctions alone are going to stop Iran from going nuclear some where in the future? At least now, if Iran goes back on the deal it forces the Russian's and Chinese to put sanctions back on Iran.
Disagree slightly.
Bush put sanctions on Korea after they reneged on the agreement they signed (and generally ignored) with Clinton. His sanctions may not work as well as you or I want, but at least Bush held them to the agreement they signed (thank you Jimmy Carter, dumbass).
You also assume Russia and China (and Europe) won't try to undercut us by participating in the agreement, what does Russia or China have to lose with a nuclear Iran? I think we will be the biggest loser when the Persians go nuclear.
The Iranians will get caught cheating, and the Russians and Chinese will say it isn't that big a breech, or our data is inconclusive (see Vietnam Peace Treaty for previous example).
We get 13 years of terrorism, then they get nukes and up the ante.
 

Scotth

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
1,496
Location
Minneapolis, MN
What's wrong with continued sanctions and international isolation? Why a deal now? How does the status quo HURT the US?

There is no international sanctions or isolation if Russia and the Chinese walk away. The status quo doesn't necessarily hurt us but Iran will eventually go nuclear and isn't that the issue?

Status quo is an answer and so far a good policy: got them to the table didn't it?

Everyone came to the table for a reason and if they all walk away how successful was the status quo exactly?

You may want to research Russian-Iranian relations...especially when they just signed a 15 year bilateral military agreement that will go into effect upon lifting of sanctions.
My point exactly, what do you think is going to happen if the deal goes south?

Disagree. No need to make an unenforceable deal. If there are other elements that necessitate an agreement, why not let Congress in on the terms and enact a valid treaty and not a deal that will not be limited to the current President? If the terms really are that good and enable world peace, isn't that something the ENTIRE nation could get behind instead of the typical partisan politics of "my elephant can beat up your donkey"?

The deal isn't a treaty and no President, Republican or Democrat, is going to concede power to congress.

Republican's didn't demand when Clinton made his nuke deal with North Korea that it was a treaty and needed congressional approval. The deal isn't limited to Obama. The deal is enforceable as long as it is in place. The North Korea deal went away because GW ended it on June 6, 2001.

Nobody is arguing this will create world peace but at some point you actually need to do something.
 

Scotth

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
1,496
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Disagree slightly.
Bush put sanctions on Korea after they reneged on the agreement they signed (and generally ignored) with Clinton. His sanctions may not work as well as you or I want, but at least Bush held them to the agreement they signed (thank you Jimmy Carter, dumbass).
You also assume Russia and China (and Europe) won't try to undercut us by participating in the agreement, what does Russia or China have to lose with a nuclear Iran? I think we will be the biggest loser when the Persians go nuclear.
The Iranians will get caught cheating, and the Russians and Chinese will say it isn't that big a breech, or our data is inconclusive (see Vietnam Peace Treaty for previous example).
We get 13 years of terrorism, then they get nukes and up the ante.

For me, better to try and fail then to do nothing and ensure that outcome.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,362
Location
CONUS
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/09/i...-if-inspectors-want-access-to-military-sites/

Seemingly out of nowhere, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stated Thursday that Iran won’t sign off on any final nuclear agreement unless military sites are declared off limits to foreign inspectors.

Trust us! We will keep the terms of this deal, no need for those pesky compliance checks. :thumbsup:

more credible source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/world/middleeast/iran-khamenei-rouhani-nuclear-agreement.html?_r=1
 

Gunz

Combined Action
Verified Military
Joined
Jun 29, 2014
Messages
7,795
Location
Decisive Terrain
"In his remarks Thursday, Ayatollah Khamenei seemed to rule out any inspections inside military bases or compounds...Several of the sites the United States is most concerned about in Iran are on military bases, including Fordo."

...and just when Kerry thought he'd finally hammered that square peg into the round hole...
 
Top