The Nuclear Iran Situation

[printcraft]

The overwhelming opinion here is that the agreement won't work, I want to know if Obama will be given credit when it does.

Sure, look me up in 30 years and I'll buy you a steak dinner if it works.

 

[BugI02]

This is kinda what I've been saying. He doesn't care how crappy of a deal it was. He just wanted history to show that his administration made a deal when others could not.

It was a deal made just for the sake of saying that they made a deal.

'Peace for our time' and all

 

[BugI02]

In what scenario is that even a slight possibility? Developing a nuke gets sanctions slapped back on, If they ever used one or a proxy used one it'd be the end of Iran.
Why would they ever use one knowing exactly how it ends for them?

Oh I don't know - perhaps because their government is controlled by religious fanatics enamored of matyrdom?

 

[Kutnupe14]

'Peace for our time' and all

That's not a completely fair comparison. Iran hasn't been militarily running roughshod over the Middle East. In an area of the world that's seems to be full of irrational regimes, Iran has proven to be savvy AND rational state actor.

 

[Jludo]

Oh I don't know - perhaps because their government is controlled by religious fanatics enamored of matyrdom?

Any evidence they are that and not a rational state actor? Are they just playing the long martyr card? Spending decades waiting to get the perfect "single nuke in Israel" move?

 

[pudly]

Any evidence they are that and not a rational state actor? Are they just playing the long martyr card? Spending decades waiting to get the perfect "single nuke in Israel" move?

You are very persistent at asking challenging questions, but very poor at answering challenging questions. So, what would you say if before 30 years, the Iranians don't stick to peaceful nuclear technology?

 

[Jludo]

You are very persistent at asking challenging questions, but very poor at answering challenging questions. So, what would you say if before 30 years, the Iranians don't stick to peaceful nuclear technology?

I'd say pudly was right, Iran can't be negotiated with or trusted.

 

[jamil]

I'd say pudly was right, Iran can't be negotiated with or trusted.

But what if our experience has been such that Pudly's prediction is the most likely? Why should that not be the default assumption?

Will INGO give Obama credit if he's right in 30 years? That's an astonishingly irrelevant question.

Whomever wrote the history books will have decided that. Also intervening circumstances typically prevent one decision from being played out to its natural conclusion. For example, The moment Obama changed from Bush's strategy in Iraq, Obama assumed the responsibility for all events thereafter. Bush did not create the circumstances from which Daesh emerged. Obama did. Whoever diverges from Obama's "strategy" on Iran, they own the consequences thereafter.

 

[pudly]

I'd say pudly was right, Iran can't be negotiated with or trusted.

Wow... That's an incredibly weak statement considering the amount of death and destruction that it would take for that admission. The results of such a mistake are not an academic exercise, but have life-and-death consequences.

 

[Jludo]

Wow... That's an incredibly weak statement considering the amount of death and destruction that it would take for that admission. The results of such a mistake are not an academic exercise, but have life-and-death consequences.

You asked if they pursued nuclear weapons breaking the agreement, much much further leap to them using nukes.

 

[Kutnupe14]

But what if our experience has been such that Pudly's prediction is the most likely? Why should that not be the default assumption?

Will INGO give Obama credit if he's right in 30 years? That's an astonishingly irrelevant question.

Whomever wrote the history books will have decided that. Also intervening circumstances typically prevent one decision from being played out to its natural conclusion. For example, The moment Obama changed from Bush's strategy in Iraq, Obama assumed the responsibility for all events thereafter. Bush did not create the circumstances from which Daesh emerged. Obama did. Whoever diverges from Obama's "strategy" on Iran, they own the consequences thereafter.

I don't follow that logic. The differences between George and Barry's policies seem almost negligible, concerning Iraq, and the Islamic State declared their intentions prior to Obama arriving in office. I think both presidents, with a sizable helping hand from the Iraqi govt, who thought they "had things under control," and wanted the United States out are all culpable to some degree.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You are very persistent at asking challenging questions, but very poor at answering challenging questions. So, what would you say if before 30 years, the Iranians don't stick to peaceful nuclear technology?

I'll ask this question, what do you think Iran would do, in the unlikely event they attained nuclear weapons? And how likely do you think they are to actually developing them in secret and using them?

Kut (knows it's a lot harder than people think)

 

[BugI02]

I'll ask this question, what do you think Iran would do, in the unlikely event they attained nuclear weapons? [Test them] And how likely do you think they are to actually developing them in secret [very likely] and using them [the $64000 question]?

How willing are we to chance it? How about Israel?

Kut (knows it's a lot harder than people think)

*

 

[jamil]

I don't follow that logic. The differences between George and Barry's policies seem almost negligible, concerning Iraq, and the Islamic State declared their intentions prior to Obama arriving in office. I think both presidents, with a sizable helping hand from the Iraqi govt, who thought they "had things under control," and wanted the United States out are all culpable to some degree.

GWB's policy was not to announce a withdrawal date and not to withdraw before certain achievements are met. Obama's policy was to withdraw as soon as possible. That's what he campaigned on.

That Iraqis wanted us out was not much more than a convenience for Obama. If we're talking about policy differences, given previous actions it's most likely that Bush would have vigorously pursued renewing the agreement, and would likely have gotten it. Obama, not seeing any value in staying, and having campaigned on leaving, just let 'er ride and pulled out.

Also, Bush had nothing to do with the **** going on in Syria, which is a major component of how Daesh came into power. That cluster**** was entirely Obama's policy. Bottom line. Not that I'd have wanted another 4 years of Bush--still better than Obama--it's less likely that Daesh exists in the capacity that it does today. That's just how inept in foreign policy Obama is. And actually I don't think it's merely incompetence. Ideology seems to inform his foreign policy more than any sense of strategic thinking.

 

[Jludo]

GWB's policy was not to announce a withdrawal date and not to withdraw before certain achievements are met. Obama's policy was to withdraw as soon as possible. That's what he campaigned on.

That Iraqis wanted us out was not much more than a convenience for Obama. If we're talking about policy differences, given previous actions it's most likely that Bush would have vigorously pursued renewing the agreement, and would likely have gotten it. Obama, not seeing any value in staying, and having campaigned on leaving, just let 'er ride and pulled out.

Also, Bush had nothing to do with the **** going on in Syria, which is a major component of how Daesh came into power. That cluster**** was entirely Obama's policy. Bottom line. Not that I'd have wanted another 4 years of Bush--still better than Obama--it's less likely that Daesh exists in the capacity that it does today. That's just how inept in foreign policy Obama is. And actually I don't think it's merely incompetence. Ideology seems to inform his foreign policy more than any sense of strategic thinking.

If Saddam was still in power daesh wouldn't have come to power.

 

[Jludo]

Bush signed an agreement, known as the Status of Forces Agreement, on Dec. 14, 2008, that said: “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.”

Obama didn't install maliki. He botched Syria and Lybia and contributed heavily to the current situation. But Iraq I don't put on Obama.


Bush, Clinton Play Blame Game in Iraq

 

[jamil]

If Saddam was still in power daesh wouldn't have come to power.

Yep. Bush dicked that up. He turned it Iraq into a cluster****. However, to his credit he did clean up a lot of the cluster****. Bush left office with a relatively safe Iraq, with troops there preventing Daesh from entering Iraq.

As soon as a leader changes policies that lead to a new cluster****, that leader owns that cluster****. And one could argue your same point about Assad. Obama made an international crisis out of it and he dicked that up. Yeah. Obama owns this cluster****.

 

[pudly]

Yep. Bush dicked that up. He turned it Iraq into a cluster****. However, to his credit he did clean up a lot of the cluster****. Bush left office with a relatively safe Iraq, with troops there preventing Daesh from entering Iraq.

As soon as a leader changes policies that lead to a new cluster****, that leader owns that cluster****. And one could argue your same point about Assad. Obama made an international crisis out of it and he dicked that up. Yeah. Obama owns this cluster****.

ISIS/Daesh barely even existed when Bush left office. They were a minor offshoot of Al-Qaeda that almost no one had even heard of. That cluster**** is entirely on Obama who decided to give billions in arms and training to the "Syrian rebels" starting in 2012 to try to overthrow Assad in a war of choice. He was even warned by the CIA that that involvement might spawn a fundamentalist movement in Syria. Over and over, there were reports that rebels were switching sides and giving US equipment to other groups.

Syria: nearly half rebel fighters are jihadists or hardline Islamists, says IHS Jane's report - Telegraph

Daesh had an opportunity to develop into a serious threat (despite Obama's assurances that they were the "JV team") because of two factors:
-A choice to supply arms/training to rebels to overthrow Assad when there was no clear American interest in the conflict. Assad would likely have been able to put down the rebels without this interference.
-A power void in Iraq due to Americans leaving that allowed Daesh to easily expand into Iraq even while fighting in Syria.

 

[KG1]

It's that whole Arab Spring thing man. We must back that Arab Spring. Worked out well in Libya. Why not Syria?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Iran vows to pursue missile program despite new U.S. sanctions | Reuters