Deal with Iran: yes or no

[Rerun]

I think it is stupid to deal with Iran at all.  And it is a red flag to me to have Russia and China for it. 

It looks like a done deal because Mr. President says he will just do it no matter what congress says.

   

[Vt Big Rig]

Russia, China, and IRAN love it.

How can that be good?

[iolaire]

I fully support it.  What have we accomplished with our policy of the past 25 years with Iran?  How many centrifuges has Iran built despite all the existing trade bands and inspections.  Or what have we accomplished with the past 62 years with Cuba?

Its very clear isolation doesn't make governments we don't like go away.  At least we are trying something.  Lucky for us people are starting to be more open to trying new things rather than just relying on some play book built long before they were in politics.

[MooseMom]

I support it also.  Barack Obama was very clear while he was campaigning in both 2008 and 2012 that it was his intention to talk to Iran in order to get them to stand down from their nuclear position.  That was one reason he was elected, and he has made good on his promise.

I wish the media would refrain from making it seem like this is a deal that is between and Iran and the US only.  When they do mention China and Russia, they don't bother mentioning the other permanent members of the UN who are also involved.  It would take only one of these countries to decide, should the deal go through at all, and then prove that Iran was not complying to their promises, that sanctions should be reimposed immediately.

The GOP should be very happy that sanctions have worked!  They have served their purpose; sanctions have brought Iran to the negotiating table.  The people of Iran have suffered through years of economic hardship because of their government's nuclear position, and they are sick of it.  They have elected a moderate president, and we should take advantage of that.  Did you see how they were celebrating in the streets?  These were young people who do not want to have their lives highjacked once again by Iranian hardliners.

Don't forget that this deal is going to be fought by Iranian hard liners.  It would be very embarrassing if our own Congress agreed with Iranian extremists.

I don't understand what more years of harder and harder sanctions would accomplish, other than something very very scary.

Just because this deal is on the table doesn't mean that we are now besties with Iran. 

[MooseMom]

If any of you happen to have a digital subscription to The Economist, you can read how Israel's military like the deal more than does Netanyahu.  I wish I could provide a workable link.  It is an interesting article.

[Michael Murphy]

It was not just sanctions Iran built many of it facilities underground making them  unreachable by American weapons,  the U.S. Spent much time and money developing a massive ground penetrating  bomb each 15 tons built with case harden steel,, each B2 ha been modified to carry 2 of these monster.  The Air Force name is blu-57.  With B2's dropping multiple bombs on the same spot they had the ability to pile drive deep and take out the Iranian sites.  Obama used a carrot and stick approach.  The raising of the sanctions were the carrot and the massive bombs were the stick.  If Iran brakes the agreement well we still have both the B2's and the Bombs.  If Iran is stupid enough to break this agreement the U..S. Could take out all the nuclear sites in days.  I think Iran will bluster but behave.

[PrimeTimer]

Due to his failure to learn from history, this is obama's Neville Chamberlain moment and will be his legacy. Also, his deal sadly leaves behind four Americans in Iran.

[Rerun]

So if you can't beat them join them?   OMG!

It will be a challenge for them but how Iran will gloat when they build a nuke right under our noses. 

Iran is not a country we need to compromise with.  Neither is Cuba!  Whom will change whom?  Do you think Iran will be lured into democracy?  See how the United States treats women and think that is a "great" idea?  They will instead try to change our culture.  Not a good deal. 

[Michael Murphy]

In 2003 the U.S. Engaged Iraq in a war over WMD in a useless war that cost money and lives over chasing a bogie man.  If memory serves me right The current Israeli leader urged Bush the lesser to go to war to stop Iraqi drive to nuclear bombs.  Israel is unable to take out militarily the Iranian nuclear sites.  Obama authorized the U.S. Military to develope the weapons to destroy these sites.  Clearly the U.S. Has given the Iranians 2 choices either work out a deal or we take out the sites.  Iran despite much bluster decided to deal.  The U.S. has a great deal of Intel about the Iranian programs and will know if the Iranians are still trying to build the bomb.  The use of force if they break the treaty is still on the table.  A flight of B2's is capable of taking out the Iranian nuclear sites in a short order.  This is clearly the steel fist in the velvet glove.  What Netanyahu wants is American Boys to invade Iran like Iraq to remove a possible enemy to Israel.  The Obama attempt to gain what we want diplomatically is valid option.  If the agreement removed the American option of pounding the sites into dust then it would be a mistake. 

[MooseMom]

I guess the "Neville Chamberlain" analogy is the meme of the day, but it is faulty.  In the late 1930's, Great Britain did not have behind them the military and economic might of the P5+1 countries.

The purpose of these negotiations is singular, ie, it is to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.  Period.  None of the countries involved are attempting to bring democracy to Iran.  That is for Iranians themselves to sort out should they wish to.

As for the 4 Americans who are languishing in Iranian prisons, there are separate talks going on behind the scenes which are dealing with this very sad situation.  I hope the talks are successful and that they are released very soon.

In what way are the P5+1 countries "joining" Iran?  The sanctions imposed by all of the countries have brought Iran to its knees which was the goal in the first place.  Now that we've achieved that particular goal, we are in a position of power.  Taking that fact with the reality that for the first time since the 1970s Iran has a semblance of a "moderate" government (voted for by Iranians), there is no need to "compromise", rather, it would be foolish to let this opportunity pass. 

George W. Bush and his compadres tried to bring democracy American style to the Middle East, and that was a stunning failure.  President Obama is not going down that rabbit hole, thank God.  The P5+1 countries are not trying to change the culture there.  If the lifting of sanctions brings greater wealth to the average Iranian, then THAT is what will change their culture.  Keep in mind that Iran has a young population as a whole and is generally secular historically, so the lifting of sanctions can possibly bring about social change in that country. 

I don't think for a single minute that Americans will willingly allow Iran's extremists to "change our culture".  That's for us Americans to do ourselves, and we have done so quite profoundly in just the past 30 days.  Whether or not you like those cultural/social changes is another question altogether, but these shifts have nothing to do with either Iran or Cuba.

I do have a general question for you all.  We all know that Netanyahu is vigorously lobbying the United States Congress to vote against the proposed deal.  Do any of you know if he has approached to parliaments/legislatures/central parties of the other P5+1 nations?  Does anyone know if he is leaning on Merkel or Hollande or Cameron?

[MooseMom]

For those who may be interested in what some of the thinking is in Jerusalem:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/15/binyamin-netanyahu-slated-israel-foreign-policy-failure-iran-nuclear-accord

So, if Israel demands further security guarantees from the US, we'll get to pay for them, I suppose.

I did find this, also from The Guardian, about reaction from the UK foreign minister:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/16/netanyahu-hammond-spar-iran-nuclear-agreement

[Charlie B53]

When I enlisted in 72 for a Military career as a Nuclear Weapons Tech, I had then, and still have the opinion that we should nuke Iraq into glass, 6 feet deep.  We could drill through the glass and pump out the oil.  If the rest of the mid-East didn't then fall into line then just repeat as necessary.

Finally, there would be Peace in the mid-East, as there wouldn't be anyone left to cause a problem.

Kind of harst, but it WOULD work.

I know, I'm a bad influence.  I get told that sometimes.

I was called 'Bad Grampa' long before the movie.

[kristina]

Due to his failure to learn from history, this is obama's Neville Chamberlain moment and will be his legacy. Also, his deal sadly leaves behind four Americans in Iran.

Very cleverly observed, Prime Timer !

[Simon Dog]

When I enlisted in 72 for a Military career as a Nuclear Weapons Tech, I had then, and still have the opinion that we should nuke Iraq into glass, 6 feet deep. 

This would allow Edmund Scientific to restock it supply of Trinitite.

[Jean]

Charlie, you got it!!!

[Whamo]

Charlie,  This old eleven bravo says rock steady to nuking those cretins.  I'm from San Bernardino, and that explosion down the street really got my blood to a boil.  My wife's niece was working at that building.  We were so thankful she made it out okay.
I've read a few books about the Muslims, and I consider them to be rabid dogs with foam in their mouths evil.

[Charlie B53]

The conflict in the mid-East has been going on for well over two thousand years.  The whole rest of the world is not going to step in and make any lasting resolution.

When you have a Nation that is hell bent in eliminating a neighboring nation and that same nation is in the process of developing the 'Bomb', it is merely a matter of time, and it will happen.  Not IF, but when.  And it will not be too long now.

Iran WILL build a bomb.  The first 'test' will more than likely be directly over Israel, immediately followed within minutes, with ten more tests.

By the time the rest of the world knows the blasts have occurred most of the mid-east will be blackened.  NATO members will NOT launch for fear of escalating this very short war into a world conflict.

Most all of this has been written in prophecy over two thousand years ago.

Are Governments today thinking they have the ability to re-write prophecy that has consistently been proven true throughout not only the last two thousand years, but the thousand years before that, all the way back to the time of Moses, and before?

Even if the rest of the world managed to build an air defense system totally surrounding Iran such that even the smallest missile  living their airspace was immediately destroyed, the Iranians would simply load the bomb(S) (yes, plural) into vehicles and have suicide drivers drive into the cities of their neighbors.

How can you stop such determined lunacy?

Only through consistent and immediate destruction of ALL facilities, of any size, in any place, that could contribute to the manufacturing, development, and construction of atomic devises.

Harsh, but so are they.  They kill innocent people.  Targeting innocent people.

We, at least attempt to avoid shedding innocent blood by way of making 'surgical strikes'.  We minimize killing innocents but alas, in war there will be unavoidable casualties.  We can but try to keep them to as few as possible.

[Michael Murphy]

Once again the US is still in position to blow every one of the nuclear sites to hell.  Research is continuing on even better bunker busters.  The Iranian systems for separating bomb material have been dismantled.  The US has matined its ability to monitor and destroy Iranian facilities. Lastly the Israelites maintain enough nuclear strike porptential to leave Iran a smoking hole.  Some of these nukes are at sea on subs with cruise misses.  No  Iranian  first strike could take them out.  Finally a Iranian first strike would almost certainly cause a US nuclear response.  Can you say glass covered parking lot.  We got Vetified distrustion of critical equipment, return of all prisoners, Iranian help with Isis and we have maintained the ability to take out the nuclear sites if Iran cheats. Seems like a win to me. 

[cassandra]

We, at least attempt to avoid shedding innocent blood by way of making 'surgical strikes'.  We minimize killing innocents but alas, in war there will be unavoidable casualties.  We can but try to keep them to as few as possible.

A study in “The Lancet”, a specialist medical journal, lays bare the price of the Anglo-American invasion that began 10 years ago.
From the moment that the first air strikes took place on March 19 2003, Iraqi civilians began to die.
By the time the last US soldiers left in December 2011, “at least 116,903 Iraqi noncombatant's had been killed, according to Barry Levy and Victor Sidel, two American professors of public health from Tufts University and the Albert Einstein College of Medicine respectively.

And that figure is 6 times lower than most experts estimate.

Surgical strikes?

[Michael Murphy]

One other thing in 1938 England and France were in no position militarily to deal with a resurgent Nazi regime.  When they could have stopped Hitler was earlier when he remiliterized the Ruhr.  When Nevile Chamberlein had his moment, it was too late to stop Hitler.  Neither England nor France had recovered from the horrible losses of the First World War.  Obama basically put a gun to Irans head and said negotiate or we will blow up your facilities. Unlike England and France in the 1930's the US has built and maintained the ability to bomb the nuclear facilities.  That ability is being further strengthened by the work on a advanced replacement for the Blu-57 Bunker Busters that are currently in the Air Force Inventory.

[MooseMom]

I dearly hope that American foreign policy is not going to be founded upon "prophecy".  What a strange comment.

We are not making a deal with "mooselims", rather, we are making a deal with a specific sovereign state, Iran.  Most deals are made on the idea that each side gets some, but not all, of what they want.

We (not only the US, but also the EU, Russia and China) get a promise (the reality of which has now been verified) that Iran will dismantle their nuclear capabilities that could be used to create a bomb.  I've always heard from American politicians that the biggest nightmare we face is the threat of a nuclear Iran.  Well, that biggest nightmare can swirl away in the mist for at least 15 years.  We got what we wanted.

What did Iran want?  We have to understand enough to even ask that question.  The universe does not have the US as its center.  So, what did they want?  They want to have sanctions lifted, their impounded money released and the ability to now sell their oil on the market.  Why do they want that?  They need the money to jumpstart their economy so that their citizens can live normal lives again.  Remember that Iran had always been a secular society, and if we can help their people "take their country back" from their religious right, then Iran has some modicum of hope in returning to the real world.  That's what their people want.

If money and medicine and food are once again available to them as it is to us, then which politicians do you think will get the credit?  Hint:  it won't be the Ayatollah.  Remember that Iran's religious leaders HATE this deal precisely because it will reduce their power over Iranians.  More reason for us to support it.  This deal strengthens the moderates and undercuts the influence of the religious leaders.  The Iranian delegation that worked hard on this deal are very courageous.

Regular Iranians are ecstatic over the deal because they are tired of being the world's pariah state.  If the moderate factions that helped broker this deal pave the way for Iranian citizens to boost their economy and thus their personal income, well, THAT's the way to win hearts and minds.  Most people in Iran just want to get a job, raise a family and then feed and educate their children.  They are more interested in those things than in standing in the streets yelling, "Death to America".