So by now most of you have probably heard about the nuclear deal with Iran being reached. I wrote up a facebook post where I addressed the primary terms, concessions, and concerns I have with some of the agreements. Since our polical discussions have always interested me I felt like sharing it here for futher discussion.

 

 

So once again our President empowers our adversaries and diminishes US interests. Whose side is this guy on anyway?

 

Lets see what Iran got out of this deal:

1. Sanctions terminated on day 1 of implementation if requirements are met. Requirements are weak so Iran will easily meet them.

 

2. All of Iran's frozen assets in foreign bank accounts, will be returned to them. This is approximately $100 billion.

 

3. Embargoes on conventional arms and ballistic missiles are lifted after 5-8 years.

4. Iran will likely get the S-300 air missile system from Russia. A highly advanced air defense system. Bad news for anyone wanting to launch an attack on Iran.

 

5. Iran can export/sell its current enriched uranium.

 

 

What did the rest of the free world get:

1. 24/7 access to declared nuclear facilities, however Iran can decline entry entry to suspected sites or military facilities. Provisions currently seem very weak.

 

2. If international inspectors want to inspect a site, they submit a request to Iran. Iran has 14 days to either grant or deny the request. Plenty of time to move nuclear material, weapon systems, or hide evidence.

 

3. Iran can't build new enrichment facilities for 15 years, and must reduce/modify some of its current nuclear infrastructure. This is a plus for the free world.

4. Iran will reduce its enriched uranium stockpile from 12,000 kg to 300 kg. I suppose this is a good thing, but it means they will be selling it and not having it destroyed/removed.

 

5. Human rights and terrorism sanctions are still in place. Finally some common sense logic!

 

6. The U.S. has ability to halt sanctions relief, if it believed Iran has violated the agreement. On paper this one sounds good, but given the ease at which Iran can delay/deny inspectors, per the deal agreement, the effectiveness of this term is marginal at best.

 

Bad deal for the US, Europe, and Iran's neighbors. Saudi Arabia reportedly might develop its own nuclear program or purchase nuclear weapons from Pakistan. Israel may ultimately decide to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

US Government, Russia, China, UK, France, Germany, EU, UN, BRICS, IAEA and most of the world supports this agreement. UAE has also given a cautiously positive statement. All colors of government and ideologies and majority of democracies and other moderate regimes. 

 

Now on the other side, you  basically got Netanyahoo, his friends in AIPAC and their minions in GOP, oh you can probably add ISIS to the list. Quite a colorful group here of warmongers, extremists and apartheid.

 

--

Edited July 14, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

Yeah, it's a pretty bad deal on the West/Arab side. A good deal for Russia/China. A mediocre deal for Iran. Why mediocre for Iran? Because they're still selling their oil at the lowest prices in the past 5 years. If they had sold even 2 years ago, it would be more of a win. As it is, I wouldn't be surprised if some of their stock is being sold below cost.

 

West gets about what they had 5 years ago, and the rest are empty promises that Iran will never honor. How much of that enriched uranium will be monitored when it's sold? I guarantee at least half stays in Iran.

 

Neighbors get an economic & military competitor who does not honor the standards of the international community. Not good for Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraq can't even fight against ISIS. Iran would steamroll them.

 

Russia and China get a chance at Iran's markets and extremely cheap resources as well as another potential trouble spot for the West to spend resources on.

 

Iran has a dirtsale on their oil, gets some extra military hardware, and continues to sink their money into a secret program that won't do their people much good. If they develop nukes, they either get attacked by Israel or go to war with their neighbors. Either way, many of their citizens will die and their resources will be destroyed.

 

Secular authorities in the U.S. & Russia have been irresponsible enough with nukes, not to mention the kleptocracy in North Korea. Nothing good can come from a theocracy having them. The authorities in Iran have a Doomsday agenda that make them impossible to negotiate with. They are not afraid of death and will tell the entire world to convert to Islam and sharia law or die. Better to kill that nuclear program for good and lose some troops than wait and lose entire cities or continents.

Bad deal for the US, Europe, and Iran's neighbors. Saudi Arabia reportedly might develop its own nuclear program or purchase nuclear weapons from Pakistan. Israel may ultimately decide to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

 

 

1. Elected and democratic governments of US and Europe disagree with you that this is a bad deal. 

2. Saudi Arabia has full and legitimate rights to Nuclear energy under IAEA. They should go ahead full-speed regardless of whatever deal Iran makes or doesn't. All Gulf countries have full and legitimate rights to Nuclear energy and their programs are under IAEA and NPT protocols. But there's one country whose program isnt under IAEA and NPT protocols, the one crying the most. 

3. Iran will be bombed before it has enough material to build a bomb. West would have a whole year to do so, it would be stupid of Iran to give up 2-4 months of break-out time and then try to break out in 1 year. You're assuming they're stupid, rest of the world is stupid, but, hey, GOP and Netanyahu have it figured out! If everything is coming your way, then you're the one in the wrong lane buddy.

 

DM, your analysis have missed a KEY feature:

 

The IAEA’s access to Iran’s nuclear facilities is permanent. Other transparency measures will remain in place for 25 years.

 

Iran would have never agreed to this permanent clause if it was seeking the bomb.

 

And Iran wont be surpassing US or Israel militarily in next 25 or even 100 years. So yea, there's no way they attempt a breakout and not get wrecked in process. They know this, and they realize this, and they know, on top of that their economy is getting wrecked anyway, they've realized the reality and have come to terms with it. 

 

Another point:

 

 

1. 24/7 access to declared nuclear facilities, however Iran can decline entry entry to suspected sites or military facilities. Provisions currently seem very weak.

 

2. If international inspectors want to inspect a site, they submit a request to Iran. Iran has 14 days to either grant or deny the request. Plenty of time to move nuclear material, weapon systems, or hide evidence.

 

Incorrect, Iran cannot deny, if it disagrees, it will be taken to the members of the agreement for resolution and majority vote will prevail. So it is always going to be USA, UK, France, Germany + EU vs Iran, China, Russia..5vs3, so Iran can at maximum DELAY, but not stop.  Keep in mind the whole supply chain would be under permanent inspection AND that Iran would have dismantled all paths to the bomb before sanctions are lifted. if 5/8 members feel Iran is playing games, sanctions are back on, which would be VERY stupid thing for Iran to do. Because they would have dismantled all the paths to bomb and would come under sanctions, meaning they'd  be far worst off than today even if they had no agreement. So yea, outside fear-mongering, there's alot of common sense flowing into this deal made by arguably the most skilled diplomatic and technically expert institutions on this planet on the topic at hand. 

Edited July 14, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

Reading this thread I can see why they would want to nuke the west, haters gonna hate.  

 

 

2. If international inspectors want to inspect a site, they submit a request to Iran. Iran has 14 days to either grant or deny the request. Plenty of time to move nuclear material, weapon systems, or hide evidence.

 

14 days, enough time to move nuclear material and weapon systems? No... just no. The US probably have a satellite hovered over every facility in the Republic of Iran by now - they will definitely pick that up anyway.

Shah! There are many Democrats against this deal. Your hatred for the GOP is clouding your hearing. You must watch Al Jazeera. After they get their money they will laugh and give us the finger. Mid-East nuclear arms race here we come. I will be shocked if Israel sits on their hands and does nothing. If they do something... all bets are off.

Shah! There are many Democrats against this deal. Your hatred for the GOP is clouding your hearing. You must watch Al Jazeera. After they get their money they will laugh and give us the finger. Mid-East nuclear arms race here we come. I will be shocked if Israel sits on their hands and does nothing. If they do something... all bets are off.

Was just a bat-signal to you old friend 

I unfortunately do not have time for a full length response. But I will address a couple things. I do not believe Iran is stupid and the rest of the world is stupid. Iran will likely not use a nuclear weapon for fear of reprisal. The only scenario I can picture Iran using nuclear weapon is if they are placed in a situation of imminent defeat. That is really the only semi plausible theory. From what I've read Iran must allow entry to its nuclear sites, but it can deny access to sites not previously agreed upon. Again, I do not know the exact as I've heard some conflicting interpretations of that rule, but I guess we will have to wait and see. As for Iran moving nuclear material covertly, it can indeed be done. Underground railways is one such means. North Korea using tunnels to mask troop movement or supplies. Satellites and spy planes can only pick up what they see above ground. I really hope that our elected officials know what they were doing, because the only winners of this outcome I see are Iran, China, and Russia.

If the US does not approve this deal, there likely will not be a deal of any kind.

US rejection would mean that our European allies will begin removing economic sanctions and then the US not have sufficient leverage for a new deal.  Quotes to this effect:

German ambassador to the US Peter Wittig:

"If diplomacy fails, then the sanctions regime might unravel.  It depends on who's to blame if there's no deal."

UK ambassador to the US Peter Westmacott:
"[sanctions on Iran have probably reached] the high-water mark. You would probably see more sanctions erosion if the talks collapse unless the failure were clearly, incontrovertibly Iran's fault."

The French ambassador to the US, Gerard Araud, notes that Europeans had stronger trade ties to Iran and that they've taken much more economic hit than the US from the presence of the sanctions:
"We - not you - made the sacrifice of the sanctions. We lost a lot of money. We have done a very tough job, we have done it in a very loyal way."

 

 

The US, acting alone, has not been able to remove the Castros from power in Cuba, and it would be silly to think that the US alone could someone police Iranian actions on Iranian soil.

Edited July 15, 201511 yr by Niels

I believe this is a done deal. I myself, do not like it, and I fear it is a big mistake... but there's nothing that can be done to stop it. If Congress makes a move to kill this deal, and they will... Obama will veto it. Then it takes two-thirds of the House and Senate to over-ride the veto. I don't think enough Democrats will go against Obama in an election year. They will fall in line like the mindless sheep they are.

This is a terrible deal. The sanctions being relieved will do more to further Irans nuclear capabilities than the lackluster restrictions impsoed. Kerry went to the negiotating table with a clear mentality a bad deal is better than no deal and it is killing us. Clearly obama is looking for a win to wrap up his adminstration while kerry wants to add another mark to his resume at the end of the day this deal is bad for the world. Lets make clear what the deal does for us:

1.Take Irans Time to Bomb from 3 to 12 months assuming they can be trusted. (To them they are litteraly making a deal with the devil so it can be assumed they are going to further their program in secret)

2.The plant inspections are a joke basically just sending a memo to Iran: Hey we are coming to check things out are you cool with that? A proper analogy would be the DEA sending a message to a drug lord saying 'Hey in 14 days we are coming to check on your house for drugs are you ok with that?'.

3. Perhaps the only promising thing in the deal but still not important. Intelligence on this is pretty bad but also is does nothing yet slow progress and at this point not by to much. The entire deal should have been played like this though.

4.Force Iran to dump its uranium stockpile. Considering its position in the world this should not be to hard to do considering the perspective buyers. Honestly has anyone even considered that fact that the deal provided does a TERRIBLE job of telling Iran how it reduces its stockpile meaning that anyone who is in the market for uranium is going to have a field day. ANYONE. To add to that 12000 kg of anything is horribly easy to hide in a large country.

5. Obvious not a net benefit to the plan for us xD. They are selling us the status quo.

6. Again assumed in any framework.

Then lets look at the even more disturbing part:

Iran Gets SOMETHING OUT OF THIS! SOMETHING HUGE!

First of all we hand them a 100 bilion dollars to spend on the toys they are now aloud to buy. Second we basically hand them our alternative to compliance. A advanced air defense system not too scary but yet still bad for the west. Third we allow Iran to resume purchase of all conventional weapons it wishes and it now has a 100 billion dollars to buy whatever toys it wants toys that are going to be very bad for isreal and for the people of the country. We scare away one nuclear threat and serve our selves one conventional mess. Lastly we give them express permission to sell the thing we would love for them to stop producing however they want.

 

Conclusion:
Bad news for the US

1. Lackluster restrictions? 20% of their gdp is gone, that's not lackluster in any sense of the word, its the sanctions that brought them to the table.

 

2. Breakout time: 3 to 12 months isn't about trust. It's a technical process based on verification, you are not depending on them to tell you hey now well make bomb in 12 instead of 3. So this has nothing to do with trust, but rather, laws of physics.

 

3. Inspections: Nukes and stuff aren't your pack of hash you can move out in your pocket and smuggle out or move around without being spotted by dozens of high tech sats and stealth drones hovering all over the place, something DEA doesn't have. Bad analogy. You assume the west will close its eyes in 14 days Iran considers a response, and that's as far as I know only for military sites, not nuke sites, those would be under permanent inspections. If Iran refuses, it goes to majority vote which is with west, if Iran fails to comply, sanctions are on.

 

3. Intelligence not being good is purely subjective and speculative opinion on your part, not a fact.

 

4. Uranium being sold all over the place: Uranium will be sold under IAEA/UN / NPT protocols. It's not an open market commodity. If you are not aware, let me inform you that Iran's complete supply chain would be under supervision, that also means whereelver Uranium ends up. Uranium sales are not done in an open market, they are highly regulated or sold in black market, seeing each gram of Uranium would be constantly accounted for, it's not going in black market.

 

5. YOU aren't giving them anything, 100bn dollars is THIER money. Iran cannot buy defensive weapons for 5 years and parts of offensive for 8. Either case, everyone has a right to defend themselves. It's like you know, right to breathe air...

 

Or Are you saying you have more right to defend then anyone else? Blatant hypocrisy.

 

Conclusion: you are misinformed on each and every concern you highlighted. Either its a genuine error or its partisan politics.

 

Excellent deal for US, saves them from fighting someone else's war and waste another trillion or two along with precious lives.

 

Iran should cease this momentum and settles its outstanding issues with all of its neighbours, even offer peaceful nuclear technology to its neighbours under international rules.

 

Everyone in.the region need to unite and fight the common enemy I.e. ISIS. Iran is already leading the fight, the weapons inflow ban of 8 years will jeapordize this good fight. Nonetheless this Sunni Shia nonsense of a conflict needs to stop.

Edited July 15, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

Wow Obama made the next big diplomatic play in US history after Nixon/Mao summit.

1. Lackluster restrictions? 20% of their gdp is gone, that's not lackluster in any sense of the word, its the sanctions that brought them to the table.

 

2. Breakout time: 3 to 12 months isn't about trust. It's a technical process based on verification, you are not depending on them to tell you hey now well make bomb in 12 instead of 3. So this has nothing to do with trust, but rather, laws of physics.

 

3. Inspections: Nukes and stuff aren't your pack of hash you can move out in your pocket and smuggle out or move around without being spotted by dozens of high tech sats and stealth drones hovering all over the place, something DEA doesn't have. Bad analogy. You assume the west will close its eyes in 14 days Iran considers a response, and that's as far as I know only for military sites, not nuke sites, those would be under permanent inspections. If Iran refuses, it goes to majority vote which is with west, if Iran fails to comply, sanctions are on.

 

3. Intelligence not being good is purely subjective and speculative opinion on your part, not a fact.

 

4. Uranium being sold all over the place: Uranium will be sold under IAEA/UN / NPT protocols. It's not an open market commodity. If you are not aware, let me inform you that Iran's complete supply chain would be under supervision, that also means whereelver Uranium ends up. Uranium sales are not done in an open market, they are highly regulated or sold in black market, seeing each gram of Uranium would be constantly accounted for, it's not going in black market.

 

5. YOU aren't giving them anything, 100bn dollars is THIER money. Iran cannot buy defensive weapons for 5 years and parts of offensive for 8. Either case, everyone has a right to defend themselves. It's like you know, right to breathe air...

 

Or Are you saying you have more right to defend then anyone else? Blatant hypocrisy.

 

Conclusion: you are misinformed on each and every concern you highlighted. Either its a genuine error or its partisan politics.

 

Excellent deal for US, saves them from fighting someone else's war and waste another trillion or two along with precious lives.

 

Iran should cease this momentum and settles its outstanding issues with all of its neighbours, even offer peaceful nuclear technology to its neighbours under international rules.

 

Everyone in.the region need to unite and fight the common enemy I.e. ISIS. Iran is already leading the fight, the weapons inflow ban of 8 years will jeapordize this good fight. Nonetheless this Sunni Shia nonsense of a conflict needs to stop.

1. This is a misinterpreted response. Lackluster refers to the deals proposed restrictions rather than that of the sanctions.

2. Actually it assumes Iranian cooperation and compliance to move the time to bomb which is what I was saying. We cant trust them to move the breakout time from 3 to 12 months can we?.

3. Sigh. 1st of all the stealth drones and 'Tech Sats' did not serve us so well in our invasion of Iraq did they? At the end of the day moving enough enriched uranium to create the bomb is fairly easy considering how much is nessecary. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/25/michael-morell/odd-reality-irans-centrifuges-enough-bomb-not-powe/. You assume they are hauling big bombs from place to place and that our sattlites are alot more advanced moving the actual material would be as easy as moving normal waste.

4. Response is silly as it calls for a exact pinpointing of material and advanced location of SECRET bases. Not a net loss to the plan but yet still a concern and allowing said production is silly.

5. Actually you are giving them something 100 billion dollars they would not have absent from the plan. When your dealing with a country that calls you the great satan and you have seized such a sum of money you are handing it to them. It was economic warfare and by your own standard of self defense that money belongs to us. Exactly every country has a right to defend it self so now your saying that if it is against our intrests to give it back to them that it is our obligation to? Blatant hippocracy. Nice how you danced around the offensive weapons part.

Conclusion:

Still a bad deal for US

My Thoughts:

Do  I think Iran will create a bomb under the parameters? Probably not. I would have prefered normalizing relations to this deal or atleast a much better deal. Isreal will be fine Deterence solves even though the sanctions killed interdependancy. Is what we got worth what we gave. Probably not

And to the people reporting that inspectors need permission to inspect facilities are completely wrong. IAEA inspectors have 24/7/365 access to any nuclear facility, military installation OR any other site they deem necessary to inspect (this is a very board definition, meaning they can inspect any property if they suspect it's used for the Iranian nuclear programme). I suspect the US insisted that they also have their own inspectors have access - and those inspectors have to get permission first.

 

Also, you guys are completely disregarding any protocol and diplomacy. Do you even realize how much time it takes for someone to get into a country in an official capacity? Visitations are usually planned and agreed on months in advance - if an official wants to visit a country they first have to get their passport, if they don't already have one - then it has to go through the host countries' clearance process which can take a few days. An inspector can't willy-nilly just decide to fly to a country and to inspect a site, it will never happen. If I was an inspector or even a diplomat and I want to go into the US the entire process takes a few weeks. I can't just show up to the airport with my diplomatic passport telling security at JFK to allow me in because I'm a diplomat. There's protocol involved that everyone has to follow.

And to the people reporting that inspectors need permission to inspect facilities are completely wrong. IAEA inspectors have 24/7/365 access to any nuclear facility, military installation OR any other site they deem necessary to inspect (this is a very board definition, meaning they can inspect any property if they suspect it's used for the Iranian nuclear programme). I suspect the US insisted that they also have their own inspectors have access - and those inspectors have to get permission first.

 

Also, you guys are completely disregarding any protocol and diplomacy. Do you even realize how much time it takes for someone to get into a country in an official capacity? Visitations are usually planned and agreed on months in advance - if an official wants to visit a country they first have to get their passport, if they don't already have one - then it has to go through the host countries' clearance process which can take a few days. An inspector can't willy-nilly just decide to fly to a country and to inspect a site, it will never happen. If I was an inspector or even a diplomat and I want to go into the US the entire process takes a few weeks. I can't just show up to the airport with my diplomatic passport telling security at JFK to allow me in because I'm a diplomat. There's protocol involved that everyone has to follow.

This is incoherent. You have two contradictory arguments presented. Both are partially incorrect

 

And to the people reporting that inspectors need permission to inspect facilities are completely wrong. IAEA inspectors have 24/7/365 access to any nuclear facility, military installation OR any other site they deem necessary to inspect (this is a very board definition, meaning they can inspect any property if they suspect it's used for the Iranian nuclear programme). I suspect the US insisted that they also have their own inspectors have access - and those inspectors have to get permission first.

 

Also, you guys are completely disregarding any protocol and diplomacy. Do you even realize how much time it takes for someone to get into a country in an official capacity? Visitations are usually planned and agreed on months in advance - if an official wants to visit a country they first have to get their passport, if they don't already have one - then it has to go through the host countries' clearance process which can take a few days. An inspector can't willy-nilly just decide to fly to a country and to inspect a site, it will never happen. If I was an inspector or even a diplomat and I want to go into the US the entire process takes a few weeks. I can't just show up to the airport with my diplomatic passport telling security at JFK to allow me in because I'm a diplomat. There's protocol involved that everyone has to follow.

This is incoherent. You have two contradictory arguments presented. Both are partially incorrect

 

So for those of us who haven't been fully following these deals, you might want to explain how they are both partially incorrect. 

I know I have followed a small bit of this, only what I could grab when I'm not running around rampant, but from what *I* understand, and I could be 100% wrong, is that Iran doesn't make weapons requiring radioactive material (Uranium), inspectors have full access (which we know is a crock), and that a lot of other countries are in agreement to this deal.

 

My question is, what is going to prevent them from getting it elsewhere? What's preventing them from talking to whatever allies they have (I will guess Russia and China will want in on this action?) into building something for them instead? Sure, they can sell it, but how difficult is it to actually track?

 

And to the people reporting that inspectors need permission to inspect facilities are completely wrong. IAEA inspectors have 24/7/365 access to any nuclear facility, military installation OR any other site they deem necessary to inspect (this is a very board definition, meaning they can inspect any property if they suspect it's used for the Iranian nuclear programme). I suspect the US insisted that they also have their own inspectors have access - and those inspectors have to get permission first.

 

Also, you guys are completely disregarding any protocol and diplomacy. Do you even realize how much time it takes for someone to get into a country in an official capacity? Visitations are usually planned and agreed on months in advance - if an official wants to visit a country they first have to get their passport, if they don't already have one - then it has to go through the host countries' clearance process which can take a few days. An inspector can't willy-nilly just decide to fly to a country and to inspect a site, it will never happen. If I was an inspector or even a diplomat and I want to go into the US the entire process takes a few weeks. I can't just show up to the airport with my diplomatic passport telling security at JFK to allow me in because I'm a diplomat. There's protocol involved that everyone has to follow.

This is incoherent. You have two contradictory arguments presented. Both are partially incorrect

 

 

It's not contradictory. One statement is disputing the statements that they have to give 14 days notice in advance which is indeed false, and the other statement is just stating that it's not even possible to go into a sovereign country on the whim. I suspect that the IAEA would probably have permanent inspectors living in Iran inspecting each site every few weeks, but what I was explaining was that for someone to go into a foreign country they need to follow a series of protocols. You don't just fly into a country, even if you're a diplomat. What exactly about this is partially incorrect? Because I can give you sources from my own country which states exactly that. No diplomat can just arrive in the country. They have to arrange it in advance with the Department of International Relations and Co-Operation, and the Chief of Protocol, or whoever that person designates, usually a Protocol Officer, has to meet the diplomat at the diplomatic lounge at the airport and they have to be accompanied to their destination. That's protocol.

 

Please do tell me where I was incorrect, I'd love to hear about it...