The Iran deal

[Dill]

(05-09-2018, 10:39 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Head back in time, Obama could have went the long term way and convinced the Congress the deal was in the best interests of America. But, Schumer, and other Democrats spoke publicly stating it was a bad deal so no shot at getting the votes needed.. This meant the deal was just inked by  President and had no long term guarantees, Obama was told that repeatedly as were the allies. Obama probably figured it was safe projecting HRC to be next POTUS so deal would never be dismantled.

I am no expert, but I will use words of Schumer and other Democrats on foreign relation committee. This is a bad deal, we have no power to inspect Iran to insure compliance.

It was a deal Obama chose to circumvent Congress, a risk he took and now he lost. But we lost as he gave Iran billions of dollars in the process. What did we (US) get? Nothing really, our allies gained financially, we did not.

The thing I love about President Trump is understands negotiate through strength, this deal the US had zero strength. But, I have a hunch the Trump team will trigger a better long term deal for the US, be patient,

If you have been paying attention to US politics during the last 10 years then you know that Republican Senate was not "convincable" and that had nothing to do with the viability of the Iran Deal. Obama took the risk that enough in Congress would see the deal was working, and would understand that breaking deals harmed US credibility. He was wrong.

Shumer's claim there was no power to inspect and insure was just parroting Netanyahu. And now you are just parroting Shumer. You cannot judge JCPOA was a "bad deal" if you don't know what the US gained and what the alternatives were.

1. 2013--China and Russia said they were no longer going to to enforce sanctions if the US did not get a deal. That meant by 2015 an Iran with no effective sanctions and no inspections, and ALL its centrifuges and enriched plutonium.

2. Iran's breakout time was 6-8 weeks in 2013, when negotiations began. Then in 2015 it destroyed two thirds of its centrifuges and gave up over 200 kilos of enriched plutonium. They willingly destroyed their own track to the bomb. Now breakout time is well over a year. incalculable, really, since they have to replace all those 15,000 centrifuges they destroyed. Why is this "getting nothing"?

3. The inspections regime was the most rigorous and intrusive in history. China, Russia, the E 3, and the IAEA agreed. Effective and working. No bomb since 2015 and none in sight for the next decade while we had the deal.

4. Iran took a risk. It listened to its own moderates. Empowered them to make the deal. And when it went through and opened their economy, it set the country on a track away from hardliner control. Now the moderates are discredited. The hardliners want Iran on a road to the bomb, and they are determined to get there regardless of sanctions. Moderates still have enough power to keep open plan B--continue deal with the remaining responsible powers. If that fails, then control and iniative fall back to the hardliners; it is hard to see how anyone can prevent a run for the bomb--short of an invasion. ZERO incentive to cooperate with the US.  And every incentive to get a bomb.

US "strength" was our ability to pull all these different, powerful, independent countries together at the last minute for a deal that helped everyone but Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia.  People who believed Trump bluster empowered him to throw all that away. Ntanyahu knew that and played to Trump's base with his timed "expose" of Iranian lies. Why would ANY of the former deal partners want to help Trump while he threatens them with sanctions too?

How do you ever imagine the ignorant and blustery Trump can do anything to influence Iran now but turn to war, which would have little effect on Iran without a ground invasion.   "Negotiate through strength" Trump style means The Iraq war, only in a country three times the size of Iraq and undivided by sects. Outside of Israel and Saudi Arabia, who would help the US? How does this fit anyone's goals except the Likud?  We have a huge base in Qatar, across the street from Iran. How do US "allies" up and down the Gulf view the prospect of a war which makes them targets?  They are not Trumpsters. They see an erratic deal breaker, not a deal maker. An erratic, authoritarian leader, more like the Arab dictators they all hate than a steady Clinton or no drama Obama.