danivon wrote:Well yeah, when people don't get caught they can't be punished can they?

Are we really to imagine that the West will go to all the trouble of reimposing the UN sanctions because of one site that is enriching uranium illegally but nowhere near weapons-grade?

danivon wrote:Excuse me for taking your words (as opposed to those of someone else) as what you meant to say.

You are starting to revert to responding to people with insults and sneering when your reasoning fails. Do you want me to quote your pledges from when you returned tones after your flounce?

Well, gee, thanks. So, all I have to do is take a hypothetical and prove its validity

Here's what we do know: one of the worst regimes in the world is going to have a lot more money to do what it wants--namely kill Americans and Jews

danivon wrote:I was not attempting to "defeat" your logic. Just apply it as you wrote it.

Enough foolishness, I have a 3 week old to look after, and at least when he pukes up milk he means it.

rickyp wrote:fate

Well, gee, thanks. So, all I have to do is take a hypothetical and prove its validity

?

Your whole argument is a hypothetical based upon assumptions that have no evidence to support them.

fate

Here's what we do know: one of the worst regimes in the world is going to have a lot more money to do what it wants--namely kill Americans and Jews

You realize Fate, that this is ridiculous.

But if it were true, then why would Russia and China have a particular problem with this?

And if it is true isn't it much better that they don't have a nuclear weapon? And therefore isn't it great that China and Russia played along to make that happen?

1. Frequently, hypothetical situations are based on current conditions, but cannot be proven. That's why they're hypothetical.

2. You challenged me to "Show (you) how sanctions by the US, and perhaps the UK would have been enough to force Iran to go beyond the terms of the nuclear deal." That is a hypothetical.

3. The US does have some unique banking power that may have been leverage enough. Thanks to Obama/Kerry, we'll never know.

4. Obama fought Congress over the past several years to prevent additional sanctions. So, maybe your hypothetical is best posed to Iran's best buddy--the occupant of the White House. He fought to stop them. Now, maybe he believed they wouldn't work. However, what a shrewd negotiator would have done is use the threat of more sanctions while bargaining with Iran. Instead, Valerie Jarrett's assistant managed to give Iran more than was reasonable. Did you notice all the things Obama "could not" ask for? One example: the American hostages. Yet, somehow, they were not proper for a "nuclear negotiation." However, the weapons ban and missile restrictions on Iran? Oh, well, those were not nuclear either, but . . . well, Iran has a right to weapons to kill innocent Westerners with--apparently

Is it? Iran doesn't want to kill Jews and Americans? So, the "Death to America! Death to Israel" stuff is just a good time in Tehran

But if it were true, then why would Russia and China have a particular problem with this?

This makes no sense

rickyp wrote:fate

1. Frequently, hypothetical situations are based on current conditions, but cannot be proven. That's why they're hypothetical.

All hypothetical situations can be supported with evidence or not.

I have demonstrated to you that China and Russia had no interest in maintaining sanctions indefinitely, nor any interest in a resolution to anything beyond the nuclear weapons treaty.

You haven't even bothered to address their potential motivations for a deal beyond the nuclear...

You also haven't even bothered to address how sanctions could be effective without China Russia and the other major trading partners of Iran (Japan, India)

Doctor Fate wrote:3. The US does have some unique banking power that may have been leverage enough. Thanks to Obama/Kerry, we'll never know.

Historically almost all sanctions regimens have broken down over time. Especially where some partners suffer from the effects of the sanctions (Japan and China) whereas others feel virtually nothing (US). Self interest...

As previous links have stated, the banking leverage by itself wouldn't stop barter deals or other direct forms of exchange. Without all parties participating the boat becomes leaky.The previous embargo on arms sales to Iran in the 80s is a demonstration of how difficult these things are to maintain. (Iran Contra affair)

Both David Cameron and Obama asked that additional sanctions not be added because it could lead to the end of the negotiations on the nuclear deal. Presumably all of the nations at the negotiating table were in agreement with the leaders of the UK and US. What we do know is that the deal on nuclear weapons was achieved. Without additional sanctions
And that makes them right.

fate

Is it? Iran doesn't want to kill Jews and Americans? So, the "Death to America! Death to Israel" stuff is just a good time in Tehran

Reducing complex geopolitical situations to caricatures is always ridiculous.

You seem to believe that the US has a right to enforce its wishes on any and all political actors in the middle east and to do so with impunity. That's incredibly naive.

Now a deal is in place that will keep them nuclear free for ten years at least, and move the time frame from making a weapon if they decide to act to at least 18 months...
And somehow critics say the situation is worse?
Illogical.

What on earth makes you think their interests coincide with those of Israel and the US beyond nuclear non-proliferation?

Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director of the agency, said in an interview that while “it is clear that a facility of sizable scale cannot simply be erased in three weeks’ time without leaving traces,” the more likely risk is that the Iranians would pursue smaller-scale but still important nuclear work, such as manufacturing uranium components for a nuclear weapon.

“A 24-day adjudicated timeline reduces detection probabilities exactly where the system is weakest: detecting undeclared facilities and materials,” he said. …

“Certain parts of the installation were renovated, leaving no trace of enrichment activities that had taken place,” Mr. Heinonen said. “However, nonrenovated parts had uranium in the 2003 contamination, which raised concerns.”

As impressive as the Iranians’ efforts at concealment were then, Mr. Heinonen said they would be better prepared to remove the evidence of illicit work if they decided to cheat on the accord.

“There will likely be plans to be executed promptly to avoid getting caught,” he said.

“The IAEA is not an intelligence agency,” Cordesman reminds us. “It doesn’t seek out new facilities; somebody has to tell them.” That somebody will end up being the IAEA’s partner countries, who will do their best to determine what sort of nuclear development is taking place not just in previously established labs, but military annexes and other secretive settings.

“One of the most critical aspects of this entire structure is essentially how good will the intelligence of the participating countries be. That will be as critical as any of the technology improvements on the part of any of the IAEA inspectors.”

All of which comes down to old fashioned spy games. The good news, at least, is that if and when the intelligence community identifies a potential unknown facility, the equipment IAEA has at its disposal will be able to sniff it out, even with that 24-day grace period.

“The problem is that if you tool up and then have to tear it down, that’s a pretty expensive game, as well as a very high-risk one, when it comes down to the stuff that’s going to be detectable,” explains Cordesman. “While 24 days sounds like a lot of time, if it involves any radioactive material, it is damn hard to get rid of.”

rickyp wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/30/opinion/why-the-naysayers-are-wrong-about-the-iran-deal.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

But I’d be even more nervous without this deal, which reduces the chance that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon in the next decade.

President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emerged from a meeting Monday united on the fact that Iran must show concrete proof that it is dismantling its nuclear program in order for the U.S. to lift any economic sanctions.

"We have to test the diplomacy, we have to see if in fact they are serious about their willingness to abide by international norms and international law and international requirements and resolutions," Mr. Obama told reporters after his meeting with Netanyahu. "Anything that we do will require the highest standards of verification in order for us to provide the sort of sanctions relief that I think they are looking for."

Wow. 10 whole years of "reduced chance" that they go nuclear?

rickyp wrote:fate

Wow. 10 whole years of "reduced chance" that they go nuclear?

Compared to the status quo... which is what?
If you listen to the most vociferous critics of the deal, Iran has been on the brink of having a nuclear weapon for a very long time.
With no deal, aren't they still, on the brink?
Which is better.....? 10 years or any day now?

He said this "practical and logical mechanism" would have Israel under Muslim rule with some Jews being allowed to stay as a "protected minority" but only after proving "genuine roots." He advocates strict apartheid against Jews saying that they would not be allowed to vote in a future Muslim state while Arabs would have full rights.

He claims that his plan would promote "the hegemony of Iran" while removing "the West's hegemony" from the Middle East.

Khamenei, who is described in the book as "the flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem," wrote that his views are not anti-Semitic but Islamic and based on "well-established Islamic principles." This goes on the opinion in Islam that land which was once owned by Muslims can never be ruled by non-Muslims again. Along with Israel, this also includes Russia, many parts of Europe, Thailand, India and parts of China and the Philippines.

However, Khamenei singles Israel out as an adou [enemy], doshman [foe] and a "cancerous tumor" for several reasons, the first of which is for being an "ally of the American Great Satan" which is waged in a war to overtake "the heartland of the Ummah [nation]."

Second, he says Israel is singled out because of his claim that it has waged a war on Muslims and therefore has become a kaffir al-harbi [hostile infidel].

Third, he claims that Israel "occupies" Jerusalem and calls it "Islam's third Holy City."

Khamenei says his plan entails low-intensity warfare based on wearing down the patience of Israelis and the international community. He writes that this plan does not entail "classical warfare" and he supposedly does not want to kill Jews.

His plan goes on the assumption that all Israelis have dual citizenship and would rather live in the US or Europe. He recommends therefore to make life in Israel so uncomfortable that they leave voluntarily to avoid threats on them.

He then describes using the tactic of "Israel fatigue" wherein the international community would decide to stop supporting Israel's military programs.

Another section of the book boasted past Iran-supported warfare against Israel using examples from Gaza and Lebanon. He writes that he aims to recruit West Bank "fighters" in units modeled after Hezbollah.

“We have intervened in anti-Israel matters, and it brought victory in the 33-day war by Hezbollah against Israel in 2006 and in the 22-day war between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip."

Though he doesn't reference an Iranian nuclear program directly, he mentions that a nuclear Iran would be able to deter Israel from taking any military action against the Islamic republic.

Referring to the Holocaust, Khamenei called it a "propaganda ploy" and writes that "we don't know why it happened and how."