1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

A Deal With Iran

Discussion in 'Middle Eastern Politics' started by BigRob, Mar 27, 2015.

  1. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    If the reports about the ongoing negotiations with Iran are accurate the United States is actively pursuing a policy where getting an agreement is more important the content of the agreement.

    If the reports are accurate:
    1) Iran will be allowed to continue running centrifuges at an underground site that they lied about even existing.
    2) Many Iranian military sites will remain closed to inspectors unless sanctions are lifted.
    3) The Iranians will not be required to fully disclose the extent of their nuclear program and past weapons work to the IAEA.

    An obvious question:
    1) If the full extent of the Iranian program doesn't have to be disclosed - how is there going to be any meaningful verification to assure that they have indeed given it up?

    Iran has spent years lying about its nuclear program, ignoring UNSC Resolutions, not cooperating with inspectors and even now not cooperating with the IAEA as this deal is pursued. Why should we expect anything less in the future?

    It seems the White House is blindly charging ahead in their effort to reach a "historic" deal, but if verification protocols have been gutted the "deal" is not worth anything. From Turkey, to Egypt, to Israel, to Saudi Arabia, to Iraq, to Iran, to Yemen, American "policy" in the region is in tatters. A bad deal with Iran just makes it that much worse.
     
  2. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,847
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    Suppose a satisfactory deal cannot be made and the administration walks out. What next? Continue the sanctions and wait? War? Other?
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2015
  3. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    I don't think war is very likely. I do think the sanctions are having an impact of isolating Iran and hurting their economy. I believe you can use Iran's continued unwillingness to live up their agreements and obligations to perhaps enhance the sanctions - and ultimately bring Iran back to the table if and when they are ready to have a serious dialogue.

    Iran is actively opposing American interests throughout the region. Most recently Iranian backed rebels toppled the pro-Western regime in Yemen - and are now demanding that action a response to this action by nations like Saudi Arabia must be stopped as part of a deal with the United States. My view is that Iran should continue to be punished and isolated as much as possible under the current sanctions regime - and we should seek to expand it after their actions during this process.

    Our lack of leadership in the region has put the entire in a delicate situation. War might come - and it might come because we are disengaged.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2015
  4. Lagboltz

    Lagboltz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,847
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Hurricane alley
    I think there is a possibility of war if Jeb is elected. He is adopting shoot-now-ask-questions-later-Wolfowitz as his foreign adviser.

    As far as lifting sanctions Obama is of course impatient and wants to wrap it up before 2016. I think the sanctions may take up to another decade to work. Obama was always a poor negotiator, but the EU, especially France are wary of a generous deal and will most likely keep things sane.
    Actually Europe is the area that should show the most leadership. The Mideast problems are more at their doorstep - both internally and externally.
     
  5. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    If republicans keep at it, there will be no agreement if they can do anything about it. If there is no agreement what is the point of Sanctions if you have sanctions but are not willing to talk and work out a deal. If you can't talk, that leaves 2 options....they do what they want and we stop caring ( unless SA or Israel does something) Or we start bombing....Im just happy Obama has moved on without the Republicans to deal...
     
  6. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The USA has started bombing Iran supporters in Yeman. Obama seems even handed bombing both sides in the civil war. But why is America in the Middle East?
     
  7. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,218
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    There is virtually no risk of war nor is there any need to deal.
    They can stop or stop can be done for them. Its not necessary to blow up centrafuges just collapse access to the cave. Pretty sure they dont just have Scotty beam people and supplies up and down.
     
  8. BigRob

    BigRob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Messages:
    7,366
    Likes Received:
    314
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    USA
    A bad deal is not worth getting. All recent reports indicate a bad deal is looming. Not to mention, a bipartisan group of 84% of members of the US House (a veto proof number) sent a letter openly stating that sanctions should not be lifted without a path to ensure Iran doesn't obtain a bomb. If the reports about this deal are to be believed - that is not the deal we are about to get.

    The US has proven they are willing to talk. Iran has proven that they are not serious about honoring past agreements that have already made. You don't need to cut a deal for the sake of a deal. You need to pursue a good deal that achieves your goals.

    This is a false choice. There are far more than two options if this "deal" doesn't come to pass.
     
  9. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    Lets be fair and not pretend republicans actuly care about what the deal is as they are oppose to it already...even though there is no deal and no one knows what the deal would be...they don't even like that we are talking.

    And yes maybe they could not live up to their end....but that's why you set up a way to verify things, and ratchet up pressure and penalties if they fail to do so.

    And what is your idea for a plan that does not involve military force...or talking to them at all....I would love to hear it. Lets call this what it is, Republicans wanting to send Americans to die for Israel because of the bible.
     
  10. pocketfullofshells

    pocketfullofshells Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Messages:
    12,009
    Likes Received:
    203
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
    well thank god we have you around to tell them , hey just don't let them...because that always works so well...If they want it, they can get it...
     
  11. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,923
    Likes Received:
    491
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    How do we know whether the reports are accurate or not? It seems to me that, since an agreement hasn't yet been reached, the content of that agreement to be is still unknown and the reports are merely speculative.
     
  12. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,218
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    They obviously want it and have for quite some time yet they dont have it. Neither did hussein get it.
     
  13. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No Matter who is in power, America must make peace from at least one side in the civil religious war in the MIddle East. At the moment Obama wants peace with Iran because he see Isis a greater menace. Even the Republicans will have to decide unless they are blinded by false religious zeal about the end of the world and coming of Christ to Jerusalem in our time..
     
  14. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,218
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    How does tolerating a country that has constiantly indicated a willingness to use nuclear wrapons appear to be a negotiable thing ?
     
  15. Aus22

    Aus22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes Received:
    153
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Iran has never said it wants a nuclear weapon. It wants nuclear power for domestic peaceful uses. We are negotiable with Israel who has thousands of nuclear weapons and threatens to use them.
     
Loading...

Share This Page