I am not sure prior statements mean much. Some of them might have been posturing, some of them might have been meant at the time but bottom-lines change in negotiations. I say a lot of things in negotiations...some of them I even believe. (I kid of course). Anyhow, when you get to hammering out details everything gets reassessed, how much you want something vs how much the opposition wants something, whether the loss of something previously thought critical is balanced by something else, whether making an item bottom- line will create an impasse, how costly would a failed negotiation be, etc.--everything gets weighed and assessed. And that is the way I think the agreement should be assessed--weighing what was gotten vs an assessment of whether the Iranians could have been pushed any harder, whether failed negations could have resulted in a significant weakening of sanctions, and whether we had a viable military option that could be used without substantial risk.

Both sides had a lot to lose if negotiations failed--Iran needed sanctions lifted, we faced the difficulty keeping sanctions going, and a risky military option. So we're looking at our bottom-line and meanwhile trying to read how far Iran will bend. They're doing the same with us. I wasn't involved in the negotiations so I don't have any idea where we could have gotten more. All I can say is that it appears that we have delayed Iran's nuclear program for about 10-15 years. The Middle East needs to be stabilized now. And this gives us at least that.

Of course, you can argue that Iran will get more money and that will destabilize things. But what is reasonably certain is that we have nipped a nuclear arms race in the Middle East in the bud for the next 10 years. Remember, Saudi Arabia funded Pakistan's nuclear program and would presumably start trying to build their own bomb if Iran got close. It's less certain and almost certainly less dangerous as to the damage that will be done by Iran having more oil revenues.

freeman3

Of course, you can argue that Iran will get more money and that will destabilize things

.

They seem to be involved in a lot of places now, despite all the sanctions.
And some of their involvement, against ISIS for instance, is welcomed...

And to complain that the Middle East might be destabilized is a little like closing the barn door after the cattle have left.

It's a bit odd to argue this way against me when I am attempting to minimize the impact of extra revenues that Iran will get...the Woody Allen speed reading technique for looking through posts is not recommended...

freeman3

It's a bit odd to argue this way against me when I am attempting to minimize the impact of extra revenues that Iran will get.

I read War and Peace in half an hour. it was about Russia ..

I admit it was a drive by... I'll expand.
The notion that Iran's extra revenues should be considered as a factor in whether or not to do this deal is meaningless. You don't need to respond to criticisms of the deal which are meaningless.

The deal was done to eliminate nuclear weapons in Iran. And it apparently will do just that for 15 years.
As usual the critics from the right are arguing against the attainment of a very good deal, because it isn't a perfect deal. It isn't a dessert topping and a floor wax.

Iran will continue to be a player in the Middlle East with or without a nuclear deal. I'd prefer it wasn't a nuclear deal. I think this is generally something people agree upon.
Iran will be able to operate with its own agenda within the region despite anything the US does. Criticism that suggest this deal was ever intended or could do more than restrict the development of nuclear weapons is unrealistic. Its the view that somehow the US is omnipotent and can somehow always force it will onto any and all geopolitical situations.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Vietnam .... and more ... should have made it clear that this concept is fantasy.
No negotiation was going to achieve the capitulation and regime change in Iran. No negotiation was going to achieve the elimination of Iran as a major player in the Middle East. And none were going to magically change the nature of their aspirations within the region.

rickyp wrote:freeman3

It's a bit odd to argue this way against me when I am attempting to minimize the impact of extra revenues that Iran will get.

I read War and Peace in half an hour. it was about Russia ..

I admit it was a drive by... I'll expand.
The notion that Iran's extra revenues should be considered as a factor in whether or not to do this deal is meaningless. You don't need to respond to criticisms of the deal which are meaningless.

I think you can reasonably be in favor of this deal (e.g. Freeman) but to say that it is meaningless to pay attention to the fact that Iran will have multiple billions of dollars rolling in is to show that you are a lunatic. Money buys weapons, and Iran ship weapons throughout the region including in support of Hezbollah which engages in terrorist acts and Syria which uses chemical weapons against its own people. Iran is also creating instability in Yemen and Sudan, and elsewhere, and it will now have more funds to do so.

Money also enables terrorist activities. Planning activities in South American (e.g. killing 200 innocent Jews for what reason exactly?) or Bulgaria (killing Israeli vacationers -- for those of you who don't give a sh*t about the Israelis at least show some respect for the Bulgarian bus driver) requires planning. Buying off Argentinian government officials (including the President) is not cheap. More money means more of the same. To say that this is meaningless is to ignore that there is an operational aspect to all things, and it's not just about ideas. Money is required to pull this stuff off, and now they will have more of it.

I also don't understand the argument that this will serve to liberalize the regime. Is there a historical precedent whereby a revolutionary theocracy was liberalized because it's economy was getting better? Won't this just strengthen the Mullah's hand internally?

freeman3 wrote:It's a bit odd to argue this way against me when I am attempting to minimize the impact of extra revenues that Iran will get...the Woody Allen speed reading technique for looking through posts is not recommended...

Or Evelyn Wood . . . I've heard it both ways.

freeman3 wrote:I am not sure prior statements mean much.

Here's the problem: they wouldn't mean much if they were half-truths told to the Iranians during negotiations. However, those were objective "red-lines" the President and the Secretary of State put forth to the American people. So, in my opinion, it's not okay to simply whitewash them. They are falsehoods. They said they would not settle for less than 'x' and they did--a lot less.

The Middle East needs to be stabilized now. And this gives us at least that.

Based on what? No matter how Iran does vis-a-vis its nuclear agreement, there is nothing in here that will prevent them from undermining other governments and spreading anarchy and terror. Who is causing the most turmoil in the region? You could argue for ISIS and I would not vehemently disagree. But, #2 would be Iran and this agreement HELPS them continue their destabilizing efforts by giving them more resources.

Of course, you can argue that Iran will get more money and that will destabilize things.

Yes, I can, I did, and I will. It's what they do.

But what is reasonably certain is that we have nipped a nuclear arms race in the Middle East in the bud for the next 10 years. Remember, Saudi Arabia funded Pakistan's nuclear program and would presumably start trying to build their own bomb if Iran got close. It's less certain and almost certainly less dangerous as to the damage that will be done by Iran having more oil revenues.

Will you give me odds on this? How confident are you?

rickyp wrote:The deal was done to eliminate nuclear weapons in Iran.

Bull.

That was the stated objective at the beginning: the dismantling of their program. That is no longer even a rational statement. "Eliminating?" What a freaking joke!

Btw, it's not just the "right" that is attacking this deal. It is also the left. It is also Sunni nations.

The only people who think this is a good deal are committed followers of Obama.

I think you can reasonably be in favor of this deal (e.g. Freeman) but to say that it is meaningless to pay attention to the fact that Iran will have multiple billions of dollars rolling in is to show that you are a lunatic

I did not say that it is meaningless to "pay attention" to the fact that Iran will have an impact in the region.
What I first said, in my drive by, is that they do now. They are pretty damn effective now.

To criticize a treaty designed to eliminate the nuclear threat, because it doesn't also eliminate Iran's ability to operate in the region as well, now that's an act of lunacy.

ray

I also don't understand the argument that this will serve to liberalize the regime

I've been reading Fukuyama's latest.
He tracks the development and decay of political systems through history.
One of the important aspects in the development of many liberal democracies is the establishment of a middle class with genuine political and economic power. If the economy in Iran improves, it may well increase the power of the Iranian middle class. They tend to be young, urban and well educated and far more liberal than the conservative mullahs.
At the moment, the us versus them situation in Iran insulates the Mullahs from some of the resistance and criticism . If Iran re-engages with the rest of the world, there will be more influences on Iranian domestic politics. In most situations in the past, openess to other ideas and ways of doing things has lead to a general liberalization. (Cina)

I understand the concern about Iran having additional revenues and using it to fund terrorism but a nuclear-armed Middle East would be a nightmare. I guess I am wondering what the alternative to a deal with Iran would have been. I guess this is to RJ and DF--could we have continued to keep other countries from selling oil to Iran? Could taking out Iran's nuclear program with military strikes be worth the consequences (an enraged Middle East, who know's what kind of retaliation against the US and Israel, and possibly war)? What's the viable alternative to this deal? To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this is the worst deal except for all the other options...

freeman3 wrote:I understand the concern about Iran having additional revenues and using it to fund terrorism but a nuclear-armed Middle East would be a nightmare. I guess I am wondering what the alternative to a deal with Iran would have been. I guess this is to RJ and DF--could we have continued to keep other countries from selling oil to Iran? Could taking out Iran's nuclear program with military strikes be worth the consequences (an enraged Middle East, who know's what kind of retaliation against the US and Israel, and possibly war)? What's the viable alternative to this deal? To paraphrase Winston Churchill, this is the worst deal except for all the other options...

Tougher diplomacy: (1) no signaling to Iran that we would permit any transgressions. (2) their Immediate compliance with past UN resolutions (3) their admittance to past transgressions (4) no immediate lifting of sanctions (5) No arms within 10 years (6) end to supporting rebels in Yemen (7) no nuclear activity whatsoever.

We needed to show a willingness to walk away with less than what we wanted. The Russians and Chinese had not yet ended sanctions. We would not yet release oil money or allow them to join the international payment system. It will be much tougher to revive a sanctions regime now that the genie is out of the bottle. The reality is that Obama has wanted this from day 1. He wants his legacy to be restoring relations with Iran after 35 years. He believes, as Ricky does, that this will lead to moderation of the regime. He purposefully tried to create a relationship with the regime. He wanted a deal at a very low price, and the Iranians knew it.

I recall there were 2 options with dealing with the Soviet Union: give in or war. We chose tough negotiation and their regime collapsed.

Now it doesn't matter what Congress does. None of us really can predict how this will play out in terms of the Iranian regime, but we can be certain that Hezbollah, hardliners in Iraq, the Syrian regime, and Yemeni rebels will be stronger. SA may try to develop a nuclear weapon. Israel and Hezbollah are closer to war as the former is more nervous and the latter is more confident. Perhaps ISIS will be weaker. That's not enough.

I need to think over your arguments, RJ. Maybe in a day or two I will respond.

Ray Jay wrote:Tougher diplomacy: (1) no signaling to Iran that we would permit any transgressions. (2) their Immediate compliance with past UN resolutions (3) their admittance to past transgressions (4) no immediate lifting of sanctions (5) No arms within 10 years (6) end to supporting rebels in Yemen (7) no nuclear activity whatsoever.

We needed to show a willingness to walk away with less than what we wanted. The Russians and Chinese had not yet ended sanctions. We would not yet release oil money or allow them to join the international payment system. It will be much tougher to revive a sanctions regime now that the genie is out of the bottle. The reality is that Obama has wanted this from day 1. He wants his legacy to be restoring relations with Iran after 35 years. He believes, as Ricky does, that this will lead to moderation of the regime. He purposefully tried to create a relationship with the regime. He wanted a deal at a very low price, and the Iranians knew it.

I recall there were 2 options with dealing with the Soviet Union: give in or war. We chose tough negotiation and their regime collapsed.

Now it doesn't matter what Congress does. None of us really can predict how this will play out in terms of the Iranian regime, but we can be certain that Hezbollah, hardliners in Iraq, the Syrian regime, and Yemeni rebels will be stronger. SA may try to develop a nuclear weapon. Israel and Hezbollah are closer to war as the former is more nervous and the latter is more confident. Perhaps ISIS will be weaker. That's not enough.

If we had a "like" button, I would have selected it. This is exactly right.

And, if any of us have learned anything from the game Diplomacy, it should be this: if you want something too much, it will bite you in the end. Obama let his desires be known up front and never, not for one second, gave any genuine hint that he would not sign onto nearly anything the Iranians offered.

I'm no fan of Trump (as a Presidential candidate). However, Obama would have done well to read "The Art of the Deal" or virtually any business book. No one can hope to get a good deal while drooling at the negotiation table.

Ray

Tougher diplomacy: (1) no signaling to Iran that we would permit any transgressions. (2) their Immediate compliance with past UN resolutions (3) their admittance to past transgressions (4) no immediate lifting of sanctions (5) No arms within 10 years (6) end to supporting rebels in Yemen (7) no nuclear activity whatsoever

There is plenty of evidence that the Russian and Chinese involvement in the sanctions had an expiry date. So did the compliance with sanctions by by India and Japan.
The involvement of China and and Russia was limited to the nuclear question. They would not have participated in a drive to make Iran capitulate.
Of all the negotiating partners, the US actually had the least impact on Iranian trade deals. The least to both lose and gain.
So this notion of tougher diplomacy bearing fruit is largely a pipe dream. The Us embargo on Cuba over time became a lonely one state embargo. The original embargoes on Iran in the 80s fell apart...
Please do remember that China and Russia, ad for that matter the Europeans were cooperating. Not taking marching orders...

Ray

It will be much tougher to revive a sanctions regime now that the genie is out of the bottle

.
Not true. read back on the explanation earlier on the snap back provisions.

ray

The reality is that Obama has wanted this from day

I don't know tha you can prove this...I'm sire he'd want more. However, you can't bludgeon the Chinese or Russians into cooperating on forcing the capitulation of Iran.
They have too many conflicting interests....
The only interest that was universal was the interest in eliminating Iran from the nuclear club.

What US critics fail to realize is that sanctions were only effective with total agreement. And that the US was not going to force more than ALL of their partners were willing to force...

Ray

He believes, as Ricky does, that this will lead to moderation of the regime.

I hope it does... And there is reason to believe that it is possible.
I am pretty certain that if the US had reneged and tried to ratchet up the demands after Iran had come back with a good faith offer to comply ...that the regime and the hardliners would be strengthened. and not just in Iran.

The art of making a deal involves creating a win win scenario.
Your imagined route is about bludgeoning the Iranians into a humiliating submission. Whilst holding together a coalition that would not support greater demands. Its a fantasy. (Unless you can find some Chinese or Russian spokesmen somewhere you can quote saying something like "Hey we should have held out for more"... Good luck with that Google search.

In the meantime the price of oil will be going down..... meaning less money in the pockets of all middle eastern oil nations. All of whom are contributing to the instability in the region in their own ways...
I don;t see why the US should be desperate to take sides on the Middle Easts version of the Religious Wars... Which is what the US would be perceived to be doing with "tougher negotiations".