The Iran deal

[hollodero]

(05-08-2018, 07:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: This deal was sour on delivery.  Obama just wanted one positive foreign policy act, so he made any deal possible just for the sake of his legacy.  Now we can chalk it up to yet another failure we have been able to escape.

And that is just the kind of hyperpartisan, complacent kind of stance that makes me say the republican side is the problem. No disrespect to conservatives, honestly, but also honestly don't tell me that this has not gotten quite typical for the GOP and their supporters these days.

Sure, Obama was an idiot, so let's just blow up the agreement. It was not America who made that agreement. It's worthless if it's not from our side. The Europeans were in? Ah, Obama's still and idiot and their opinion is worthless anyway. Agreements from the liberals simply don't count, they're all idiots. Fake deal! 

How's the world supposed to work with that? Or asked more directly, how could we keep our middle fingers from popping up? Saying the republican side is the problem actually looks like a courtesy. At least we don't associate all of the USA with Trump&friends. But yeah, there's a lot of damage done by now, this cherry added, and these things just don't go away that fast. Don't be dreamy.

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2018, 08:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But only sanctions from the US correct? Other countries could agree to lift their sanctions.

As I said I do not hink we should have pulled out. I just got a chuckle over "the rest of the world won't like us now" spin. Hell, show the US that you can do it without them if you don't like them or is the rest of the world that reliant on us? I doubt we'd just stop an agreement made just because Germany pulled out.

Well, considering my spin isn't "the rest of the world won't like us now," that really doesn't matter. As for the end, it all depends on how the agreement was written. Some agreements end when one party pulls out, some don't and continue with the remaining signatories. I don't know what the case is here, but I do know that Iran was saying they would start their program up again and have now backed off slightly, saying they will try to come to an agreement with the other parties. The issue will become how much can they give that will make up economically for the sanctions imposed by the US, which is what Iran will be looking at.

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2018, 08:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The deal prevented US allies from doing anything about Iran’s nuclear forward motion. If Israel attacked they would be at odds with us.

Plus it did zero for their middle program.

We need to Be strengthening the new ME coalition forming. Leave it to them.

Iran wasn't moving forward on nuclear weapons under the deal. That's what the deal was preventing from happening.

[Millhouse]

(05-08-2018, 08:11 PM)Dill Wrote: The alternative was not "a long term treaty." It was letting them have a bomb by 2015.  Not clear why that is "better" than 2031.

No particular reason to think that an improving economy benefits hardliners in Iran, as it was definitely benefiting liberals and moderates who backed the Iran Deal.

Now they have a 158 billion, a broken sanctions regime, and a green light to the bomb.

I was just pointing out some reasons why the deal was flawed, and that it was nothing more than a temporary bandaid that is trying to be made to look like some crowning foreign policy achievement. It wasn't.

But at the same time, pulling out of it could be a critical mistake in dealing with North Korea and getting them to the table. Then again it may not, no one really knows for sure. And as you noted, Iran may just restart their nuke program which could certainly lead to Israeli and the US attacking their sites.

[ballsofsteel]

Follow the money.

[Dill]

(05-08-2018, 08:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But only sanctions from the US correct? Other countries could agree to lift their sanctions.

As I said I do not hink we should have pulled out. I just got a chuckle over "the rest of the world won't like us now" spin. Hell, show the US that you can do it without them if you don't like them or is the rest of the world that reliant on us? I doubt we'd just stop an agreement made just because Germany pulled out.

Over the next year, the question will be how well we can do without "the rest of the world."

E.g., will Trump get his Nobel Prize if the rest-of-the-world-we-don't-need does not help the US with NK sanctions?

[Dill]

(05-08-2018, 08:25 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I was just pointing out some reasons why the deal was flawed, and that it was nothing more than a temporary bandaid that is trying to be made to look like some crowning foreign policy achievement. It wasn't.

But at the same time, pulling out of it could be a critical mistake in dealing with North Korea and getting them to the table. Then again it may not, no one really knows for sure. And as you noted, Iran may just restart their nuke program which could certainly lead to Israeli and the US attacking their sites.

Which would be an international mess, destabilize the region, and greatly decrease US security world wide, not to mention that of US allies who will thank us for any blowback.

The E 3 was easy for the US, but getting China, Russia and Iran to sit down and all agree to terms--that was indeed a great foreign policy achievement.  The world must look outside the US now for a diplomat who could put something like that deal back together.

Unless you think Iran getting the bomb, or remaining within an easy sprint of one, enhanced US security, then surely you must agree the deal served US interests. And you must agree that some deal was better than no deal. 

The goal of this deal was to stop the Iran nuclear program as soon as possible for as long as possible. It did that, and would have continued to do so into the next decade.  And there was every reason to expect the deal could be renewed--especially as it empowered the moderates in Iran.  In addition, Iran did at least PROMISE to never "seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons."
(See iii, page 3 of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/245317.pdf)

So claims that the deal was "flawed" because it didn't do what couldn't be done--get Iran to agree to a permanent ban--seems an absurd objection.  Those who argue the deal was flawed are basically saying that a nuclear free Iran led by increasingly powerful and secular moderates is not better than no deal and Iran led by hardliners convinced Iran needs at bomb--simply because the terms will eventually expire and at some future date Iran MAY rev up its nuke program again.

[Millhouse]

(05-08-2018, 08:58 PM)Dill Wrote: Unless you think Iran getting the bomb, or remaining within an easy sprint of one, enhanced US security, then surely you must agree the deal served US interests. And you must agree that some deal was better than no deal. 

Ive already said a couple of times we should not withdraw from it. Now I dont think the deal is as flawed as much as Trump and other diehard Repubs are saying. But more in line with leading Democrat Senator Charles Schumer's reasoning when he voted against it.

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/my-position-on-the-iran-deal

[Dill]

(05-08-2018, 09:56 PM)Millhouse Wrote:
Ive already said a couple of times we should not withdraw from it. Now I dont think the deal is as flawed as much as Trump and other diehard Repubs are saying. But more in line with leading Democrat Senator Charles Schumer's reasoning when he voted against it.

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/my-position-on-the-iran-deal

I understand Mill. And I don't want to sound like I am casting you as "all wrong" on this. I am just quibbling with the "flawed deal" characterization.

Shumer has the clearest and most grounded objections to the deal--thanks for posting that--but I don't find them altogether convincing and it is worth explaining why.

Unfortunately I have another appt. at the moment.  Will get back to this tonight or tomorrow.

[GMDino]

(05-08-2018, 07:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think the last attacks on Syria may show folks are over-selling "The rest of the world is going to abandon us". I think most countries realize on which side their bread is buttered.

And now they now the bread might not be delivered whether they paid for it not.

But past the butthurt over the truth about the rest of the world the only people who thinks Trump made the right move is Trump and the rubes who voted for him because he's a "tough guy who says what he means" even when he's a babbling fool.

[GMDino]

Man it was nice having a sane, well spoke, rational president.

[NATI BENGALS]

Lying sack of shit prez now makes my country look like an untrustworthy flawed ally.

Thanks republitards. The serious long term damage will begin to snowball.

Is this what the Russian puppet masters wanted? Greatly damage America's place as a well respected world leader by getting the shit brained scumbag elected? I would bet on it

[CKwi88]

Well, at least our tax cut windfalls will cover the increase in gas prices.

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2018, 10:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: And now they now the bread might not be delivered whether they paid for it not.

But past the butthurt over the truth about the rest of the world the only people who thinks Trump made the right move is Trump and the rubes who voted for him because he's a "tough guy who says what he means" even when he's a babbling fool.

No doubt I'm seeing some "butthurt" in this thread, but your might not fully understand where it is coming from.

Prehaps likw someone calling POTUS a "babbling fool".

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2018, 11:36 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Lying sack of shit prez now makes my country look like an untrustworthy flawed ally.

Thanks republitards. The serious long term damage will begin to snowball.

Is this what the Russian puppet masters wanted? Greatly damage America's place as a well respected world leader by getting the shit brained scumbag elected? I would bet on it

Remember when everyone was going to have to go back to dial up internet because of repealing net neutrality?

Remember when Trump was going to get beat in a landslide General Election?

Remember when Trump was going to not make it to the inauguration before being replaced?

Remember when England was going to become a 3rd world country because of Brexit?

Remember when the Russian puppet master would never do anything to Syria?

Remember when Trump was going to get impeached within his first 100 days in office?

and now we have:

Remember when the rest of the world turned on us because we backed out of the Iran deal?

Currently 0 for 7 anyone want to bet on going 1 for 8? I got my money on 0 for 8. Who wants to dance?

BTW, you seem kinda "butthurt". Are you one of those Trump Rubes Dino was referring to?

[Bengalzona]

(05-08-2018, 08:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But only sanctions from the US correct? Other countries could agree to lift their sanctions.

As I said I do not hink we should have pulled out. I just got a chuckle over "the rest of the world won't like us now" spin. Hell, show the US that you can do it without them if you don't like them or is the rest of the world that reliant on us? I doubt we'd just stop an agreement made just because Germany pulled out.

One nation dropping out gives the Iranians an excuse to restart the development. It puts them back in the driver's seat. Plus, they now have confidence knowing we are not consistent in our approach in any future negotiations (i.e. if negotiations aren't going the way they want, they just wait for a new administration). Now, this may sound like something they could do anyway. But past admins have been consistent in their approach, so it wouldn't be effective for them to wait. It is now, however. Plus, the Iranians can now claim that we don't hold our word or follow through on agreements, which is a big club to swing in diplomacy. They can negotiate better terms for themselves.

Also, if the other parties do not re-start sanctions along with us, they undermine the effectiveness of our sanctions. Not only do the Iranians have a reason to restart development, they would be able to subvert our sanctions just by ordering the same stuff from the Germans or French or British. Also, they can re-negotiate the terms with each other country individually and get better terms for themselves.

This is one negotiation where you really didn't want to "go it alone".

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2018, 11:47 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: One nation dropping out gives the Iranians an excuse to restart the development. It puts them back in the driver's seat. Plus, they now have confidence knowing we are not consistent in our approach in any future negotiations (i.e. if negotiations aren't going the way they want, they just wait for a new administration). Now, this may sound like something they could do anyway. But past admins have been consistent in their approach, so it wouldn't be effective for them to wait. It is now, however. Plus, the Iranians can now claim that we don't hold our word or follow through on agreements, which is a big club to swing in diplomacy. They can negotiate better terms for themselves.

Also, if the other parties do not re-start sanctions with us, they undermine the effectiveness of our sanctions. Not only do the Iranians have a reason to restart development, they would be able to subvert our sanctions just by ordering the same stuff from the Germans or French or British. Also, they can re-negotiate the terms with each other country individually and get better terms for themselves.

This is one negotiation where you really didn't want to "go it alone".

Too funny that folks think this puts Iran "back in the driver's seat". They start development again then the rest of the world imposes sanctions. They don't and the rest of the world does not. Then Iran gets their corn from Germany.

[Bengalzona]

Quote:bfine32
Too funny that folks think this puts Iran "back in the driver's seat". They start development again then the rest of the world imposes sanctions. They don't and the rest of the world does not. Then Iran gets their corn from Germany.

The "world"?

That's a rather big assumption that the rest of the world would go along with us. Most of the rest of the world was not onboard for the first sanctions. The fact is, it was hard enough to put together a coalition of our closest traditional allies, a feat which would now be nearly impossible to repeat since we stabbed our buddies in the back economically.

But... that is who we are now. Right?

Go America!!!! Rah!!! Rah!!!

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-08-2018, 11:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Remember when everyone was going to have to go back to dial up internet because of repealing net neutrality? No

Remember when Trump was going to get beat in a landslide General Election? He lost the popular vote like i thought

Remember when Trump was going to not make it to the inauguration before being replaced? No

Remember when England was going to become a 3rd world country because of Brexit? No

Remember when the Russian puppet master would never do anything to Syria? No. I remember the America first thing.

[quote pid='550381' dateline='1525833980']
Remember when Trump was going to get impeached within his first 100 days in office? Yes and no. Yes he should have been. No because Pence is probably one of those alien lizards.
[/quote]
[quote pid='550381' dateline='1525833980']

and now we have:

Remember when the rest of the world turned on us because we backed out of the Iran deal?

Currently 0 for 7 anyone want to bet on going 1 for 8? I got my money on 0 for 8. Who wants to dance?

BTW, you seem kinda "butthurt". Are you one of those Trump Rubes Dino was referring to?
[/quote]

Remember when people cried Obama made us weaker? And then supported actions that are actually making us weaker.

Im not saying the rest of the world will turn on us. But being led by a lying unfaithful sack of shit and backing out on promises and trying to act like a bully is doing more damage to our repuation than that black guy ever did.

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2018, 12:00 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: But... that is who we are now. Right?

Go America!!!! Rah!!! Rah!!!

Too funny that folks use that as a punchline.