The Nuclear Iran Situation

[jamil]

Kerry on Fordow just now: "We'll have daily access"

Mitchell: No you won't.

Kerry: Yeah, but we can file questions.

OH EM GEE.

Naivety at its finest. Reminds me of the circle jerk Saddam gave UN inspectors.

 

[caverjamie]

Are we also going to give them parts to fix their aging US aircraft while we're at it? I don't know if they're trying to construct nuclear weapons, or just nuclear power. However, as a country I think they are dangerous and should be isolated as much as possible. I base that on their proxy armies and cozy relationship with Hezbollah and Hamas. I just think the more money and conventional arms they have access to, the less stable that area of the world is going to be. If they didn't act so ridiculous and irrational, maybe I wouldn't feel as nervous. Oh well, things are going to move forward one way or the other, the only question is how fast do we find out whether their claimed intentions are true.

 

[actaeon277]

All this time and we've kept them from getting a bomb.
So let's change our strategy.
Duh!

 

[jamil]

If this doesn't work maybe Obama can bring the apology tour to the ME nations he missed.

 

[Alpo]

To the naysayers: what is the alternative? Boots on the ground? A U.S. draft? A few hundred thousand U.S. dead in Iran? For what?

 

[actaeon277]

To the naysayers: what is the alternative? Boots on the ground? A U.S. draft? A few hundred thousand U.S. dead in Iran? For what?

What we've been doing seems to have worked.

To put the question to you, what will you do when Tel Aviv and New York goes up in a fireball? A U.S. draft? A few hundred thousand U.S. dead in Iran?

 

[pudly]

To the naysayers: what is the alternative? Boots on the ground? A U.S. draft? A few hundred thousand U.S. dead in Iran? For what?

How about simply not making a deal at all. Status quo. Keep them in check.

 

[actaeon277]

How about simply not making a deal at all. Status quo. Keep them in check.

But then there would be no "patting of the backs". No "credit"

 

[T.Lex]

To the naysayers: what is the alternative

The spectrum of alternatives is broad, and starts with the status quo. Continue to marginalize Iran and erect hurdles to their participation in foreign affairs and stymy their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Not saying that plan was going great, but it was having positive (negative, depending on your perspective) effects.

I also keep coming back to Daesh and how this plays out vis a vis the caliphate. At some level, I wonder if Kerry isn't setting the stage to bring them into a coalition of the willing.

 

[Alpo]

What we "had" was not a solution. It was a delaying action.

As to your Dr. Strangelove scenario, I'm not privy to what our real response would be to a nuked Israel. I have an opinion of what should be done (depending on who fired the first rocket-nothing).

NYC. I doubt it.

 

[T.Lex]

What we "had" was not a solution. It was a delaying action.

Yet, that's exactly what was achieved with this deal - a delaying action that still mainstreams Iran and puts billions of revenue into their coffers.

As to your Dr. Strangelove scenario, I'm not privy to what our real response would be to a nuked Israel. I have an opinion of what should be done (nothing).

NYC. I doubt it.

You do realize that part of the deal allows them to develop ICBMs, right? Kinda begs the question what will be on the tippy tops of them.

Also, not directly relevant to your post, although we specifically lift sanctions on people we heretofore considered terrorists, there was no corollary requirement for Tehran to release Americans in their custody.

 

[GIJEW]

Obama's Nuclear Deal with Iran is the Worst Option, Except for all the Others - Hit & Run : Reason.com

It may not be the best deal, but it's the best anyone's going to get and the opponents have no plan. Just bluster.

How about just leaving the existing sanctions in place until the iranians simply agree to dismantle their nuclear weapon program?

 

[Alpo]

Yet, that's exactly what was achieved with this deal - a delaying action that still mainstreams Iran and puts billions of revenue into their coffers.


You do realize that part of the deal allows them to develop ICBMs, right? Kinda begs the question what will be on the tippy tops of them.

Also, not directly relevant to your post, although we specifically lift sanctions on people we heretofore considered terrorists, there was no corollary requirement for Tehran to release Americans in their custody.

Whether by our action, or with the help of others, Iran is destined to become THE power in this region. I don't know what that means for the world long term, but it is going to happen.

Nukes and ICBM's don't worry me. Russia, China, India, Pakistan, etc have them. The world would be better without any of them, but we have no exclusivity in the matter.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Whether by our action, or with the help of others, Iran is destined to become THE power in this region. I don't know what that means for the world long term, but it is going to happen.

Nukes and ICBM's don't worry me. Russia, China, India, Pakistan, etc have them. The world would be better without any of them, but we have no exclusivity in the matter.

Russia, China, et al aren't talking about the annihilation of some nations.

 

[Alpo]

Ya think? Some of us still remember Kruschev at the UN banging on the podium with his shoe. Putin is more volatile than Kruschev.

However, if I had to guess where the first post-WWII nuclear exchange will take place, it will be Kashmir.

 

[T.Lex]

Whether by our action, or with the help of others, Iran is destined to become THE power in this region.

IMHO, that is not guaranteed. I could easily see Saudi Arabia playing that role. What we'll likely end up with is a bipolar (pardon the ironic pun) Middle East. Somewhat like a 2 legged stool, it isn't particularly stable.

Nukes and ICBM's don't worry me. Russia, China, India, Pakistan, etc have them. The world would be better without any of them, but we have no exclusivity in the matter.

We have the ability to influence the matter.

Also, certain covert/extra-governmental methods still exist. Perhaps Obama/Kerry are placing their trust in stuxnet-type tools and stealthy drones.

Part of my issues is that Iran will also have better access to better tools, now.

Ya think? Some of us still remember Kruschev at the UN banging on the podium with his shoe. Putin is more volatile than Kruschev.

OMG. Khrushchev was not volatile and did not do what you think he did.

I mean. He banged the table with his shoe. But he did not say what you think he said.

 

[GIJEW]

What we "had" was not a solution. It was a delaying action.

As to your Dr. Strangelove scenario, I'm not privy to what our real response would be to a nuked Israel. I have an opinion of what should be done (depending on who fired the first rocket-nothing).

NYC. I doubt it.

Iran is the major supporter of terrorism in the world. Why do you think that they can't have some terrorists deliver a nuke-in-a-ship to the harbor of their choice?

 

[Alpo]

He may not have banged his shoe either. But that's not what the government and media showed us. I remember it well. And yes, it was linked to a comment in an ambassadorial conference with "We will bury you"....which is a non-sequiter. Still, ask any 60+ year old what they remember.

Putin....do you really want to go down a list of threats as to his potential volatility? Those threats were and are, real.

 

[Alpo]

Iran is the major supporter of terrorism in the world. Why do you think that they can't have some terrorists deliver a nuke-in-a-ship to the harbor of their choice?

I'd say the threat is Islam, not specifically Iran. I also believe that we are better off attempting to talk with Iran than to not talk and restrict them. There is always time to throw a bomb and once thrown, there is no longer any control of the result. Opening a dialogue is a less deadly approach and potentially has much better consequences.

Should we have told Nixon that he couldn't open up China because they were communist and had nukes?

 

[T.Lex]

He may not have banged his shoe either. But that's not what the government and media showed us. I remember it well. And yes, it was linked to a comment in an ambassadorial conference with "We will bury you"....which is a non-sequiter. Still, ask any 60+ year old what they remember.

That's the thing. Khrushchov did not say that. At least not how you remember it.

Putin....do you really want to go down a list of threats as to his potential volatility? Those threats were and are, real.

And are compounded by this deal. He will then have Iran as potential proxy.