Iran Has Signed a Nuclear Accord

New submitter divide overflow writes: According to the New York Times, 'Iran and a group of six nations led by the United States have agreed to a historic accord to significantly limit Tehran's nuclear ability for more than a decade in return for lifting international oil and financial sanctions against Iran, a senior Western diplomat involved in the negotiations said on Tuesday. The deal, which President Obama had long sought as the biggest diplomatic achievement of his presidency, culminates 20 months of negotiations.' Not everyone approves.

Only IRAN is celebrating

[Anonymous Coward]

THE U.S. SHOULDN’T BE CELEBRATING, EITHER: Michael Oren: Why Israel Won’t be Celebrating the Iran Deal. [time.com]

Back in 1994, American negotiators promised a “good deal” with North Korea. Its nuclear plants were supposed to be frozen and dismantled. International inspectors would “carefully monitor” North Korea’s compliance with the agreement and ensure the country’s return to the “community of nations.” The world, we were told, would be a safer place. . . .

Iran is not North Korea. It’s far worse. Pyonyang’s dictators never plotted terrorist attacks across five continents and in thirty cities, including Washington, D.C. Tehran’s Ayatollahs did. North Korea is not actively undermining pro-Western governments in its region or planting agents in South America. Iran is.

So why, then, are only Israelis united in opposing this deal? The answer is that we have the most to lose, at least in the short run. We know that the deal allows Iran to break out and create nuclear bombs in as little as three months, too quickly for the world to react. We know that the Ayatollahs, who have secretly constructed fortified nuclear facilities that have no peaceful purpose and have violated all of their international commitments, will break this deal in steps too small to precipitate a powerful global response. And we know that the sanctions, once lifted, cannot be swiftly revived, and that hundreds of billions of dollars Iran will soon receive will not be spent on better roads and schools. That treasure will fund the shedding of blood – of Israelis but also of many others.

Israelis know that, while the world might weather its deception by North Korea, they cannot afford to be duped by Iran. But neither, in fact, can the United States. Just last week, Iran’s President attended a rally in Tehran where tens of thousands of protesters chanted “Death to America.” The deal will better enable them to carry out that attack – if not today, then against future generations. And Iran’s Supreme Leader has publicly pledged to do just that.

I literally feel nauseous about this Iran deal. I feel nauseous because my daughter’s future is being seriously jeopardized by a deal that lifts sanctions that have been well designed to stop a state sponsor of terrorism from obtaining nuclear weapons, in return for virtually nothing. Somehow, President Obama has convinced his fellow Democrats that infusing Iran with billions of dollars [bbc.com]will make the world a safer place. But all it will do is exacerbate Iran’s aggression in the Middle East, and perversely enable western civilization to fund terrorism activities aimed at it.

We have given concessions to a country that has repeatedly lied, hidden, deceived, and repeatedly and boldly declared its intention to wipe out both Israel and the United States. Any member of Congress who votes for this deal must have a death wish. But of course Congress, in typical fashion, gave away its constitutional power to ratify this as a treaty (with 2/3 of Senate support) when it passed the Corker legislation [nationalreview.com]. Assuming the Republican-controlled Congress votes down the Iran deal and the President vetoes it, I cannot imagine that there are enough Democrats (13 Democrats in the Senate and 43 in the House) to join the Republicans in overriding Obama’s inevitable veto.

There’s enough political cover and ambiguity in the agreement that the real risks to U.S. and Israel will become known only incrementally, after the passage of years, and most likely only after President Obama leaves office. By the time the western world realizes what a mistake the Obama Administration has made, it will be too late. I guess that, once again, we have to pass it to reallyfind out what’s in it.

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[NotDrWho]

Choose one:

1) Iran/Syria
2) ISIS

Re:

[bigpat]

Choose A)Iran - Not Assad's Syria (which is as bad or worse than ISIS) And C) Recognize Kurdistan And D) De facto or by international agreement (ya right) partition both Iraq and Syria to create a new non-ISIS dominate Sunni state as reward for Sunnis to help overthrow ISIS.

Re:

[CohibaVancouver]

Iran: Never invaded anyone

Because the only place they might consider invading would nuke them into slag.

never used weapons of mass destruction... ...never posed a serious threat to anyone

Because we've prevented them from getting WMDs or anything else that would allow them to pose a serious threat.

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[dunkelfalke]

Because the only place they might consider invading would nuke them into slag.

What? Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan have nukes? Or maybe Afghanistan?

Because we've prevented them from getting WMDs or anything else that would allow them to pose a serious threat.

I have a tiger repelling rock to sell you. Very cheap.

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[NotDrWho]

I have a tiger repelling rock to sell you. Very cheap.

I hear the Springfield Bear Patrol has been so successful that there hasn't been a single bear attack in all of Springfield this year.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

never posed a serious threat to anyone except Hussein's Iraq.

And do remember, it was Hussein's Iraq that invaded Iran. Guess who actually "ordered" that invasion, and took the advantage of selling weapons to both sides. This is how money is made in the middle east. Saudi Arabia bought 60 billion dollars of weaponry from Hillary. And now they are using it, in Syria, Yemen, most likely Libya also.

This 'accord' is going to bring in lots of money, only now it doesn't have to be under the table, like it has been

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[BCGlorfindel]

Wow, the overreaching race to make Iran a saint and America the devil. You're overzealous approach led you to spout a lot of utter nonsense. Let's review indeed.

Iran: Never invaded anyone, never used weapons of mass destruction against anyone, never posed a serious threat to anyone except Hussein's Iraq.

1.Their official head of state, and until recently their president beneath him, were holocaust deniers. Plenty of FUD has been spread to try and deny this denial, but the fact is plain that both Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have both openly questioned how many Jews were really killed in the holocaust and called for that to be restudied and questioned by scholars more generally. It's just the new face of denial, what is the holocaust after all without millions of victims singled out for their ethnicity alone? It's just some people that died in a war again, so questioning if millions really died IS absolutely denial of the holocaust.
2. Ali Khamenei called for Israel to removed from the map, and Ahmadinejad called this a very wise statement. Somehow that seems at least a bit threatening to Israel, no? Move on to 3 before crying how Iran's never put action to those words...
3. Hezbollah was more or less founded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Hezbollah is to this day heavily trained, funded, equipped and armed by Iran. Hezbollah absolutely has launched multiple direct assaults on Israel and is eternally stockpiling weapons and arms on Israel's border aimed in on it.

U.S.: Invaded Iraq with no provocation,

Saddam's Iraq invaded and seized Kuwait with no provocation first. Upon Saddam's elimination of a UN member state, the US kicked him out and returned sovereignty back to Kuwait. They additionally set out and dismantled Saddam's programs for weapons of mass destruction that he very much DID have then. They additionally setup a no-fly zone over northern Iraq to protect Iraqi Kurds from a second genocide, as Saddam had previously done against them after the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. did however listen to world opinion and stopped there. They left Saddam in power, and stood outside Iraq's borders and watched Saddam commit a second genocide, this time against Shia Iraqi's who foolishly rose up when Bush Sr. suggested they do just that.

So since the end of the original Gulf War, which Saddam surely instigated, he committed genocide, for at least the second time in his reign. Meanwhile all the signatories to the convention on genocide stood back and had done nothing. Saddam additionally kicked out international inspectors trying to confirm his compliance with his agreement to not restart his WMD programs, and he had done this repeatedly. He repeatedly violated the no-fly zone over Kurdish Iraq. But yes, aside from the genocide and refusal to abide by inspection of his old WMD sites, there was no provocation at all for removing Saddam from power...

only country in the world to use nuclear weapons,

This has to be the cheapest shot in your quiver. Even the Japanese, the only country in the world to have nuclear weapons used against it, agree that the nukes probably saved lives, even if you only value Japanese lives, versus an inevitable ground invasion otherwise. And don't compound your folly by declaring how the nuclear bombs where unneeded because Japan was going to surrender anyway. Merely the fact that a second bombing of Nagasaki was required proves that Japan wasn't even prepared to surrender AFTER Hiroshima had been nuked.

have overthrown countless democratically elected governments (including the one in Iran).

So remind me, WHO'S the threat to world peace again?

Much as has Britain, and France, and China, and Japan and Russia and any nation that has ever gotten large enough to ply it's powers globally. America is no saint, but that hardly changes Iran's nature.

Oh, and if you're going to say t

Re:

[rubycodez]

1. Holocaust denying kills or maims no one. It's stupid propaganda but that's all
2. Israel has called for the destruction of Iran, to wipe it off the map. look it up
3. USA has funded plenty of terrorists, revolutions, despots, mass murder (example providing money and dual use tech to Saddam for WMD) more than Iran has.

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[NotDrWho]

a county that is actively trying to spread Democracy in every country it has ever invaded?

What country would that be? Because you sure as shit aren't talking about the U.S. The U.S. has set up more puppet governments and banana republics (including one in Iran) than probably any country since the British Empire. And there was nothing remotely resembling "democracy" in any of them.

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[rubycodez]

Last I checked Iran had government, constitution, borders, provinces, taxes, etc. Your BS claims are without foundation, they have a nation

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[rubycodez]

You are claiming the USA does not and has not supported terrorists, despots, revolutions?

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[meglon]

Perhaps you weren't alive during that time period, but Iraq invaded Iran at the behest of their sponsor.... uncle Ronnie... who then made mint selling weapons to both side, AND supplying Iraq with the chemical weapons it would use against Iran.

The CIA ousted the pro-western, democratically elected government of Iran in 1953, and put in place a sadistic dictator who used secret police squads to round up and jail/murder opposition. The Iranian Revolution finally through out that sociopath, and the US's response to that was.... install another sadistic murderous dictator in Iraq, and have him start a war with Iran. Then while trying to save their own cities from capture, his military used chemical weapons repeatedly to kill tens's of thousands. Of course, given the USA supplied them with the weapons, the USA was then nice enough to block any condemnation from the UN about their use.

After all that crap, do you actually not understand why the Iranian government generally has a bad taste in their mouth when it comes to the US?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/... [cnn.com]

http://www.history.com/topics/... [history.com]

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[ksheff]

Did you read the 2nd link? Reagan wasn't president in September of 1980. Also, the Shah of Iran was installed in 1941 by the British who thought he would be easier to control than his father. It was the British who wanted Mosaddegh gone after he nationalized their oil industry (not very pro-Western). Saddam was also the de-facto leader of Iraq since 1976, so if it was a part of some grand US conspiracy, you have your dates all wrong.

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[meglon]

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father Reza Shah. During Mohammad Reza's reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized under the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh before a U.S. and UK-backed coup d'état deposed Mosaddegh and brought back foreign oil firms

I'm not sure if i should point at you and laugh because you aren't capable of reading, or because you're not even as accurate as wikipedia..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Be that as it may, even the CIA has acknowledged what they did through FIOA releases. So please, feel free to argue with the CIA who, after 60 years, said "yeh, we did it" and see where that gets you. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEB... [gwu.edu]

As for Reagan.. yeh, all that tells me is you probably weren't alive during the time, or too young to remember what was going on. He wasn't yet president, but as he confirmed in 1991, him and his republican posse were playing behind the curtain undermining Carter as they went. Pretty much everyone knew what had happened right afterwards anyway... right after Reagan was elected, the Iranian started accepting compromises to their "demands," and the hostages were released the day Reagan was sworn in.

So i'm sorry you have to read wikipedia to get a history lesson, and that you can't be bothered to actually read all of a single article on the Shah. You might check out the national archives to to see the CIA papers admitting what they did, unless of course, you think the CIA is lying bout that to cover up.. um.. i don't know, maybe a weather balloon traveling back in time to crash in Roswell after sucking ships in the Bermuda Triangle into an alternate reality to hide the existence of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and the last rational conservative.

Re: Only IRAN is celebrating

[Type44Q]

Not quite true; from what I recall, their democratically - elected gov't (back in the 50's?) was a threat to a particular western oil company with vested interests in Iran... and thus we have the situation you see today... ;)

Re:

[FlyHelicopters]

Yes, that government wasn't doing what the U.S. wanted them to do,

You'd think they would learn from history. Do what we want and you can have your little country.

Yea, that isn't very diplomatic and it probably doesn't sound very nice either, but when you peal the Orange, that is what you find inside.

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[dywolf]

Oh boy. This thread is sure to break my all time high score for playing Spot The Nutjob.

Re:

[prefec2]

We celebrate too in Europe. And if the US is not ratifying the treaty, we will. So will China and Russia. Are you really willing to ignore such a big opportunity for trade? Well your loss. Of course the controls must be in place and as long as Iran confirm to the regulations trade can go on. If they violate it. The thing is off.

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[Mostly a lurker]

There are two key objectives in the agreement

1. 1. Prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. At least Saudi Arabia and possibly other states in the region would have started their own programs if Iran's nuclear program had been allowed to progress towards nuclear weapons. The choices were
   • * The international community does nothing, leading to this arms race
   • * Military attacks on Iran, probably by Israel, further destabilizing the region, and strengthening extremist groups
   • * A negotiated agreement that inhibits nuclear weapons development by Iran, and gives the international community clear warning if Iran moves in that direction.
2. 2. Make it easier to partner with Iran in combating Islamic extremist groups in the region, such as ISIS.

Iran, while no friend of Israel and the US, is no worse than most governments in the region and better than many. With the current mayhem being created by Islamic State and other extremist groups, we cannot afford further destabilization of the region. Hold you nose and support the agreement. It is the best option available.

Inspection Process

[sycodon]

If inspectors have concerns about undeclared sites, they must submit to Iran a request in writing that explains their concerns. Iran may counter with a proposal for “alternative means” of resolving the issue without actually allowing inspectors to inspect anything. If the inspectors and the regime can’t agree to a solution within two weeks, the dispute gets kicked up to a higher level. In other words, Iran has a license to stall for two full weeks whenever it does something suspicious.

After two weeks, the problem gets handed over to the Joint Commission, a new body whose membership and responsibility is defined in Annex IV to the agreement. Basically, the commission has eight members, one for each of the countries who are party to the agreement, plus the EU. A majority of five commission members may “advise” Iran on how to resolve the inspectors’ concerns. The commission has seven days to address the inspectors’ concerns, after which Iran has three days to implement any recommended measures. So, at minimum, Iran will have 24 days to clean up any suspicious sites before inspectors get a first look.

But what if Iran doesn’t comply with the commission’s requests within three days? Alas, that is a mystery. Section Q ends with the pronouncement that Iran will implement such measures. However, there is a “Dispute Resolution Mechanism” described in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the main body of the deal. This process requires another 50 days — the precise length is difficult to discern from the text, since it involves three separate levels of evaluation. So in practice, Iran may be looking at a minimum of two and a half months before they have to do anything.

And what if the inspectors are still left out in the cold? Then the only option left for the U.S. (or the U.K. or France) is to go to the UN Security Council and try to blow up the entire deal, in accordance with the “snapback” provisions of the deal.

http://www.nationalreview.com/... [slashdot.org]> Read more

Re:

[godrik]

Well, I do not know how meaningful this really is. When you delay things that much everyone knows you are doing something fishy. For whatever, you can always pile excuses the one after the other. But the trust in the actors is quickly lost when you do that.

Re:

[FlyHelicopters]

There is already no trust between the actors, this is why the agreement is a joke.

Re:

[FlyHelicopters]

You say that as if the solution isn't clear. It is, but sadly so many people can't see it.

Someone has to go first to build trust. It can't be the US for various reasons, so Iran has to go first.

If they are so peaceful, they should follow the route of South Africa. Simply dismantle their nuclear program without conditions.

Then we can start to build trust. If the removal of the nuclear program is conditioned on so many things, then there can be no trust.

Re:

[FranTaylor]

which president hung a banner stating "mission accomplished"? just asking

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[FlyHelicopters]

Bush, who was an idiot. Right up there with Obama, who is also an idiot.

Way too many people are rooting for one side or the other, as if these are sports teams. Both sides are idiots.

Re:

[FranTaylor]

Way too many people are rooting for one side or the other, as if these are sports teams. Both sides are idiots.

if both sides are idiots then it is even more important that they agree to not be idiots. Where else can you start?

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[MightyMartian]

Yeah. What an utter dolt, getting Iran to sit down with the current Great Powers and hammer out an agreement. What an utter incompetent. He should totally just keep doing what Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II did, because boy oh boy, they should had fantastic fucking success with Iran.

You know, I don't think Obama is the best president ever, not even in the top ten, but it takes a complete fucking retard or partisan lunatic to think that somehow he is some sort of bottom-rung President. But because he's black, because he's a Democrat, and because, well I dunno, because he isn't Ron Fucking Paul, somehow in some peoples' eyes he's the second coming of Satan or something.

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[meglon]

I think you're an idiot. Tell me, how is Obama the worst president ever? Is it his cleaning up of Bush's complete fuck up of the economy... or that he's not siding with sociopath murderers in attacking Iran.. or is it the millions of people who now have health insurance.... please, do tell. I get it, you're just a stupid fucking partisan hack who can't stand that Obama won, and your offshoring, company destroying, money sucking robot didn't win. Too fucking bad.

Obama's made some mistakes, yes... but all his mistakes combined don't add up to any given year of Bush II's. But yeh, you're still a fucking idiot and partisan hack. You don't need optimism, you need surgery to have your head removed from your ass. Maybe Obamacare will pay for it.

Re:Only IRAN is celebrating

[ClickOnThis]

Nauseous - that which causes or induces nausea.

No, you're thinking of nauseating.

GP was using "nauseous" correctly. Not that I agree with anything else s/he said.

Re:

[Camel Pilot]

Please.

That's just political posturing and propaganda.

And what is the purpose of propaganda and political posturing? To persuade, to foster public support and political will to take a specific action in line with the posturing and propaganda. I get sick of people just waving this off - talk of genocide - as a if it were just a mere insignificant cultural manifestation.

Re:

[gtall]

Nope. Iran has a ballistic missile program. They don't need enough nukes to wipe the U.S., just threaten New York or Washington.

Israel...total domination over the Sunni countries in the mid-east? How?

News for Nerds?

[Virtucon]

Humm, shall we discuss the half life of Plutonium? More interesting

As if America has a great track record either?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's look at the great list of broken promises and bullshit by which America exists today as we know it?

None the least of which, the 1953 coup that overthrew Iran's government to install a western puppet and which precipitated the Iranian Islamic Revolution directly,
or the 1990 visit to Saddam Hussein by US Diplomat April Glaspie, who informed him that "The US isn't interested" were he to invade Kuwait, among others.

Considering the sheer volume of lies that the US is built upon, self contradictions with its own Constitution to say nothing of agreements like the Geneva Conventions that it makes pretense of being in accord with but only in semantics, to the UN's failure to reign in "acceptable" war criminals like Israel via US veto?

Considering all that, we're the ones wagging fingers at IRAN, who is at war with nobody but the terrorists that US regime change in Iraq left for the region to absorb?

Wake me from this sea of rhetorical bullshit and Israeli war drums. This deal is better than ANYTHING Israel ever agreed to.

Re:

[Blaskowicz]

Why would they help an AQ that wants to kill them all?
Iran even made an offer to cooperate in Afghanistan in 2003, which the US turned down.

Uhh... what happens with their spent fuel?

[mlts]

Part of the agreement is that they hand over their spent fuel. My question... what do we do with it?

Re:

[sims 2]

Why we put it in the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain of course.

Re:

[WindBourne]

burn it up with a gen IV molten salt reactor.

Re:Uhh... what happens with their spent fuel?

[mlts]

That would be the best of all worlds. I find it ironic that Iran can go forward with working reactors and cutting-edge technology, while the US still is stuck with 70+ year old reactor tech.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[wiggles]

Only if you want to move Kim Jong Un to Seoul.

Re:

[WindBourne]

Why? Did either Cuba OR Iran get 'resolved'?

Re:

[Virtucon]

+1

See this movie before...

[Thud457]

Hans, Hans, you're breaking my balls!

Nuclear Accord?

[ArcadeMan]

Damn, and I was waiting for their electrical model. Honda is moving forward!

Hmmmm? Only a decade?

[WindBourne]

Seems weird that this is only 10 years.
It makes sense that it should be about monitoring (in spite of what neo-cons/tea* scream), but, what does not make sense is why 10 years only? Seems like 20 or more would be better.
I suspect that Saudi Arabia will now start THEIR program with Russia's help.

It isn't about the geopolitics

[Anonymous Coward]

What everyone needs to understand about this deal is that it is NOT about the geopolitics. It is about limiting the ability of Iran to rapidly produce the fuel for a nuclear weapon. Even with the ability to delay an inspector for a short amount of time it still meets the goals (and yes, 25 days is short when compared to the time needed to design, build, test, and implement an uranium processing facility). Iran has long been able to move money on the black and gray markets, though not as easily as if they we

Thanks Obama!

[Daemonik]

No, really.

Optimism

[argStyopa]

I'm sure that this will work out at least as well as it did the last time a Dem US president made a deal to "stop the development of nuclear weapons".

I'm sure Japan, South Korea, and others in the region still remember that agreement with pride and joy.

The million dollar/rial question...

[CrimsonAvenger]

So, what does the agreement say about verification?

Is this another "national technical means" (read: spying) situation? Or does this have some other verification measure(s) that aren't mentioned in TFA?

And on an unrelated note - no, Iran did not "sign" the agreement. Anymore than the US did. They "initialed" it (read: the negotiators on all sides agreed to hand this back to their respective governments for ratification/whatever)....

Nukes a waste for Iran anyway

[swb]

What possible use are nukes for Iran anyway? Their ability to manufacture a large number of them or deliver a lot of them at once over any distance (especially intercontinental) makes them less than useful.

Any actual use of them against the US or Israel would result in a retaliation that would seriously threaten the existence of Iranian civilization as its now known. Any US president in office when an American city was targeted by an Iranian nuke who did not turn Iran into the world's largest open air supply of Trinitite might seriously be deposed if not lynched in the streets like Mussolini.

I've read that the Israelis have a standing threat that if Israel is targeted by a nuke, they are retaliating against all major Arab capitals and Mecca, regardless of who's at fault. Ironically or not, the Israelis do collective punishment like nobody since Imperial Rome.

They might get some short-term mileage out of stunts with the Straits of Hormuz, but it only works if they are willing to risk a catastrophic retaliation from which recovery is all but unlikely except on geological timelines. And the more serious their threat, the more likely they might face a preemptive strike. Even a conventional preemptive strike would force them to either capitulate or go nuclear. If they capitulate, they lose and future threats will go nowhere. If they go nuclear? Game over. All your base are glassed over.

Probably bad

[psherman2001]

Those who think we need to choose between ISIS and Iran, just as those who say the only alternative to the current deal with Iran is war -- are being dangerously simplistic. Sort of reminds me of the whole Democrat-Republican dynamic here in the USA of late. It's one line of BS or another -- both of which turn out to be politically motivated; that is, in the self-interest of the politician. I'm tired of hearing how: "This is Bush's fault" and "No, it's Obama's fault" At some point it's our fault.

But what is the alternative, objectors?

[almechist]

Sure, "not everyone agrees", and in particular conservative Republicans are foaming at the mouth, but... The thing is, for all their talk about how this agreement is going to be a disaster for America, I have yet to hear those on the right propose anything that sounds remotely like a workable alternative to the current deal. Say we end up with the deal stopped cold by congress, which could well happen, what then? Sanctions continue, and Iran no longer feels any reason not to go ahead with work on a bomb. Why wouldn't they? How would we stop them? Military force?? Don't make me laugh, that ain't gonna happen. So what's left, increasing the severity of the economic sanctions? We're pretty much doing all we can in that area now, and indeed it has brought Iran to the bargaining table. You want to just toss away the one chance we have to make a deal? It seems to me that if you're going to just say "well, screw that!" in regard to the current agreement, you have to have a better alternative in mind, and I mean something that stands a chance of working. We've got a deal, it's better than what we've had with sanctions in place, why not go with it? If Iran decides to cheat, well, that's the time to start talking tough. All I see now is people wanting to throw away this deal because, well, it might make Obama look good. And it might, but what else is there? I'm waiting to hear of any other plan of action that sounds remotely feasible.

Re:Crazy!

[caseih]

What's crazy? Isolating Iran certainly hasn't worked up until now. I'm glad to see negotiations and compromise.

Re:

[MachineShedFred]

Unless the isolation is what brought them to the table to begin with...

Re:

[phayes]

Isolating the Iranians certainly did put a crimp on their adventurism, whether or not you think that that is a good thing or not.

Re:

[FlyHelicopters]

Isolating Iran certainly hasn't worked up until now.

Says whom?

They wouldn't even be at the table talking about it if it weren't for that. Do more of it, it works the majority of the time.

Re:

[thaylin]

Until you overplay your hand.

Re:

[FlyHelicopters]

Until you overplay your hand.

Perhaps... but the US has a rather large and well stocked hand to play the game with... Iran, not so much...

Re:Crazy!

[i_ate_god]

It only works if you actually offer an out.

If you just say "sanctions, in perpetuity", then no that won't accomplish much.

So yes, the sanctions worked. It forced Iran to the table, and now they have a deal. So the next time the West decides to punish a country, at least that country knows there is a way out if they do something to change.

Re:Crazy!

[ShanghaiBill]

So the next time the West decides to punish a country, at least that country knows there is a way out if they do something to change.

Except that Saddam Hussein agreed to disarm, and then we killed him.

Gaddafi also agreed to disarm, and turned over the Lockerbie bomber. We killed him too.

Historically, there has not been much benefit to acceding to American demands.

Re:Crazy!

[nbauman]

Sure thing, the out is simple. Dismantle the nuclear weapons program, stop supporting terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist.

Do those, all sanctions go away.

Israel could have peace tomorrow if they stopped treating Palestinians the way certain other people treated the Jews in the past.

http://world.time.com/2014/02/... [time.com]
Iranian Foreign Minister Lays Out Condition for Iranian Recognition of Israel
Official's language marks a shift from previous rhetoric
By Karl Vick / Tel Aviv
Feb. 04, 2014

One day after senior Israeli government officials raised eyebrows at an international conference by remaining in the room when Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif took the stage to speak, Zarif told a German television interviewer that Tehran could restore diplomatic relations with Israel in the event of a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. “Once the Palestinian problem is solved the conditions for an Iranian recognition of Israel will be possible,” Zarif said in the interview Monday.

The Arab League also offered them a peace plan on similar terms.

When you do something wrong, you're supposed to admit it, then say you're sorry, then promise you'll never do it again, then ask for forgiveness.

You're supposed to teach your children this stuff, shame that nations led by adults have such a hard time with it.

There is no shame in saying you're sorry when you're wrong. Iran might well find a lot of support in Europe if they came clean, the US wouldn't be in any position to push on Iran if they did. Nor would we have any need to.

If you are a Zionist then you are the biggest fucking hypocrite in the world. When did Israel ever admit that they were wrong, much less apologize, or ask for forgiveness, for acting like Nazis?

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/... [ohchr.org]

773. At about 12.50 p.m., Khalid Abd Rabbo, his wife Kawthar, their three daughters, Souad (aged 9), Samar (aged 5) and Amal (aged 3), and his mother, Hajja Souad Abd Rabbo, stepped out of the house, all of them carrying white flags. Less than 10 metres from the door was a tank, turned towards their house. Two soldiers were sitting on top of it having a snack (one was eating chips, the other chocolate, according to one of the witnesses). The family stood still, waiting for orders from the soldiers as to what they should do, but none was given. Without warning, a third soldier emerged from inside the tank and started shooting at the three girls and then also at their grandmother. Several bullets hit Souad in the chest, Amal in the stomach and Samar in the back. Hajja Souad was hit in the lower back and in the left arm.

[The IDF refused to let an ambulance bring them to the hospital, so they walked. Amal and Souad died. Samar had a spinal injury and was left paraplegic for life. The Israeli government never investigated this event or prosecuted the soldier responsible.]

This was documented by investigators from the Goldstone Commission, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Ha'aretz, the New York Times, Washington Post, Independent, and others. The Israelis never investigated.

I'll tell you what Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor said: They're all lying. Goldstone, AI, HRW, Ha'aretz, NYT, WP, they're all lying. They're all Jews who have gone over to the anti-Semites.

I hope the Israeli government and their well-paid PR firms are reading this and will see that their propaganda isn't working any more.

Israel is also a nuclear-armed terrorist state. Since they own the U.S. government, we'll have to depend on the Europeans to put pressure on them, and the boycott, sanctions and divestment movement seems t

Re:Crazy!

[jonwil]

Quite a few of the problems in the middle east today can be traced back to actions taken in the past by western nations.
The Palestinian problem wouldn't even be a problem if Palestine hadn't been taken away from the Palestinians and given to the Jews (first by the British at the end of WW1 when they created "Mandatory Palestine" and allowed the Jews in in big numbers then again at the end of WW2 when the country was split in two, then again when the Jews not only claimed independence for the Jewish part and called it Israel but proceeded to capture the Palestinian part and more land besides)

The current situation in Iran would likely not exist had the US and UK not kicked out Mohammad Mosaddegh in a coup (all because Mohammad Mosaddegh kicked out the British oil company and nationalized the oil industry)

Islamic State wouldn't be such a problem if the US had left things well enough alone in Iraq instead of launching a full-blown invasion just because some circumstantial intelligence suggested Iraq MIGHT have some WMDs somewhere (plus had the US and its allies not go into Iraq they would have been able to focus more on the war in Afghanistan and might not have taken 10 years to take out Osama bin Laden)

Re:

[MightyMartian]

I don't think the Israelis even believe that any more. The people leading the Palestinians simply want to maintain their grip on power, and Israel's Palestinian policy is guaranteed to keep them in power forever. Quite frankly, I think the hawks in Israel and the goons in Palestine basically have a sort of unspoken agreement whereby they continue this war in perpetuity. Politically, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the best way to hang on to power either side has discovered.

Re:Crazy!

[DaveAtWorkAnnoyingly]

Indeed. I agree, past Iranian presidents have been pretty immature, and quite frankly stupid in publicly encouraging nuclear enrichment, in return for crippling sanctions that hurt most of its citizens. They couldn't see the big picture and simply wanted to look hard. This is school boy bully behaviour and didn't help the country long term at all.

The current Iranian president seems a lot more sensible. He wants to talk, he wants to be part of the worldwide conversation, and over and above his predecessors immature behaviour, he is focussing on his people's well being. That's leadership. We need to keep talking with Iran, we need to listen to them and they listen to us. This surely is the best way for long term peace? If someone doesn't take the high ground and give in, we'll just be in a silly stalemate for another 200 years because of some issue that is in the past, between people that aren't included in the conversation any more.

Iran has stood and given ground, we (the west) have also given ground. This is sensible negotiation. If we continue to drag up past arguments and events, blame each other for whatever has happened before and refuse to help them because of statements made by past presidents, then we're no better than boys in a school playground. We need leaders who are prepared to talk, negotiate, and give in sometimes, rather than just puffing out your chest and wielding power. Obama in my view is one of these people (and no, I'm not American and don't live in America).

Re:

[FranTaylor]

what can you get the iranians to agree to?

Re:

[FranTaylor]

What terms would you be able to convince the Iranians to agree to?

Re:

[halivar]

Nothing less than access to a nuke in 10 years, probably.

Re:

[Markvs]

What terms would you be able to convince the Iranians to agree to?

Given how well inspections have worked in the past in North Korea & Iraq, if the Iranians wouldn't allow unfettered access then no deal. We've seen this movie before, and the sequels aren't any good either.

Re:

[jbmartin6]

" if Iran continues to make nukes"???? They don't have any nuclear weapons at this point, and have no real program to develop them. That is the repeated opinion of US intelligences agencies, not mine.

Re:

[WindBourne]

Really? What part of the agreement can you show us that backs up what you are claiming. I mean, you HAVE read the whole agreement. Right? Or are you just BSing.

Re:24/7 access does NOT = "unfettered" access

[MozeeToby]

Honest question. Do you think a nuclear weapons sized Uranium 235 extraction system (several thousand highly calibrated industrial sized centrifuges) can be moved in days, weeks, or even months? That is what weapons inspectors care about; not nuclear material (which could easily fit in the back of a truck), not nuclear reactors (which by any reasonable international agreements they have a right to), not engineering (which could be done in any random basement).

The extraction equipment is literally the only part of making a nuke that is significantly difficult to hide, it's the only thing the inspectors are actually spending time looking for. And it is far too large and complex an enterprise to hide in a few days time.

Re:

[readin]

The most dangerous thing that could come out of that part of the world is a united empire run by religious fanatics or whose government is influenced enough by fanaticism that it looks away while people within the empire use its resources to cause inflame hatred and commit terrorism. Allowing ISIS to gain control of Iraq and Syria would be less dangerous to America than allowing Iran to gain control of Iraq and Syria because in the first case you have two nations who balance each other instead of one much

Re:Good

[NotDrWho]

If you think an ISIS caliphate would be better than the West than a more positive relationship with Iran, all I can say is that you're mentally ill.

Seek help.

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

Iran is already making war against America both directly and by proxy.

Did you really mean to post a link about Iran supplying the Taliban with cash and arms without any irony? Because that's exactly what we did. Just to drive the point home: We supplied them with cash and arms. A billion dollars in cash, and only God and Uncle Sam know how much in other goodies (much earlier.) And regarding your third link, that number is dwarfed by American military suicides. The American Military is responsible for dramatically more American Military deaths than Iran could hope for. You're batting .333, pretty good for baseball, shit for Slashdot.

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

The most dangerous thing that could come out of that part of the world is a united empire run by religious fanatics

I agree, which is why I support boycott, divestiture and sanctions against Israel.

Re:

[cold fjord]

You have a very "European" outlook towards Israel (the Jewish state). What a pity.

The European Left and Its Trouble With Jews [nytimes.com]

Re:

[FlyHelicopters]

Want to really fight ISIS?

No, I don't... That is Saudi Arabia's problem, let them spend their money and military on that one.

ISIS is not a state actor, Iran is. Iran is our problem, ISIS is not.

Re:

[Blaskowicz]

Saudi Arabia would be playing quite a funny game then. With their money they're just funding ISIS and helping them acquire weapons. If they go at war with ISIS, will they still be funding them?

Re:

[NotDrWho]

No, I don't... That is Saudi Arabia's problem, let them spend their money and military on that one.

Oh, Saudis have already been spending their money [nbcnews.com] on ISIS.

Re:

[Okian Warrior]

Want to really fight ISIS? We'll need Iran and Syria as allies if you actually want to win.

Why do we have to fight ISIS at all?

Everyone over there hates us, other first world countries won't lend a hand, and in the long run the barbarism of ISIS won't withstand the onslaught of more developed ideas.

Thinking that we will prevent the conflict from coming over here is fantasy storytelling: all our draconian infrastructure didn't prevent the shoe bomber, underwear bomber, or marathon bomber - even when we were warned about those specific threats beforehand.

What's the compelling reason to do anything

Re:

[dunkelfalke]

Because you have caused it by conquering Iraq and destabilising Syria. And now we have to take all the refugees you have caused.

Re:

[WindBourne]

Actually, we do NOT need either Iran and esp. not Assad (which is really what you mean).
CONgress screwed up when they forced O to cut a deal with assad. It is obvious now that Russia and Syria were hiding their chemical and biological weapons.
In addition, I used to think that O was crazy to do little to stop ISIS.
However, it is now becoming clear what is happening. We are working with Iraq on ISIS eastern front, along with Syria's and Iraq's Northern Kurdish groups. Basically, we are pushing ISIS towar

Re:

[NotDrWho]

There are no easy choices in the Middle East. But would you rather side with a mildly hostile Iran, or the barbarians of the ISIS "caliphate"? Like it or not, there are no third options.

Re:Good

[laird]

Negotiating a treaty with a country is not the same as "siding with" them. It just means that the countries that sign the treaty agreed on a set of rules of behavior. The alternative to a treaty with Iran isn't "siding against" them, it is having no agreed on rules of behavior, in which case their behavior is unconstrained. So would you rather Iran operate under an international agreement under which they can't have a nuclear program, backed up by inspections and penalties, or would you have them allowed to do anything they want, with no inspections?

Re:Good

[FlyHelicopters]

Like it or not, there are no third options.

Nonsense. That is like saying "you're either with us or against us".

You're trying to narrow the choices to two, when there are always options beyond those.

Re:

[NotDrWho]

when there are always options beyond those.

No, there really aren't. Iran, the Assad government, and the Kurds are the only serious opposition to the ISIS caliphate right now. The only other option with any reasonable chance of success would be to reinstate the draft in the U.S. and send a massive U.S. invasion force into Iraq and Syria. And I'm pretty sure that ain't happening anytime soon.

Re:

[FlyHelicopters]

No, there really aren't.

Yes, there really are, you just can't see beyond your narrow point of view.

None of the above are required, ISIS is not a threat to the US, they are not a state actor and are mostly annoying to the region.

Saudi Arabia has a large and well funded military, they can deal with this one.

Re:

[Archangel Michael]

Supporting (or fighting) neither is an option. Nuking both is an option. Carve up the middle east into smaller and smaller bits until the bits no longer threaten anyone else is an option.

There are plenty of options, many would have kept us from giving Iran Nukes like we just did, so that they will help us fight ISIS because we won't actually fight them.

Obama just finished what Jimmy Carter Started.

Re:

[NotDrWho]

Nuking both is an option.

Oh yes, because that certainly won't start WWIII.

Re:

[Archangel Michael]

I didn't say it was a good option. I said it was an option.

Re:

[ConceptJunkie]

Nuking both is an option.

Oh yes, because that certainly won't start WWIII.

No, but it will end the suspense of when it's going to start.

Obama's big triumph is that it probably won't be him who needs to deal with it.

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

Obama just finished what Jimmy Carter Started.

And don't forget Ronald Reagan sent arms to Iran. Not only that, he sent them a cake, baked in the shape of a key.

Apparently, by baking Iran a cake, Reagan was demonstrating that he had no religious objections to terrorism.

Re:Good

[Nidi62]

You're rational is the same we followed when arming Afghan jihads against the USSR. That didn't come back to bite us.

The problem with that was, as soon as they ran off the USSR, we wiped our hands and walked away, ensuring that the people with the best access to guns got to rule the country. Had we stayed and helped them rebuild we could probably have swayed most of the country over to our side and enstilled a more democratic government. Instead we got the Taliban.

Re:

[nbauman]

You're rational is the same we followed when arming Afghan jihads against the USSR. That didn't come back to bite us.

The USSR seemed to have done a pretty good job of keeping Afghanistan under control, building housing, schools, educating women, etc. They were less brutal than GWB, and more competent. (Although anybody is more competent than GWB.)

Got any real info?

[Okian Warrior]

He and his within 5 second +5 'insightful' posse.

I'm curious about what you said.

Is this something you've noticed anecdotally, or do you have a screen scraping program that loads and interprets slashdot conversations? (Or something else?)

I'd be very interested in statistics about this sort of thing. Anything that throws light on how certain subjects get modded up, correlations of moderator accounts that don't post, and so on.

There's a lot of activity here that seems anecdotally suspicious. It'd be nice to know whether this is due to random clustering or s

Re:

[thaylin]

OMG dude he is talking about the forces fighting ISIS, not ISIS themselves. It is like you see a bone and run with it, without realizing it is your own leg.

Re:

[FranTaylor]

what do you plan to offer the iranians that they will accept?

Re:

[Nidi62]

Because sanctions worked so well on Cuba. Look how fast the Castro government toppled. And Cuba was an island! I'm sure it'll be even easier with a mostly landlocked country like Iran.

Re:

[WindBourne]

Yes, but the problem is, that it is the ppl, not the gov. Their gov is far less friendly than Egypt or Saudi Arabia.