Iran Nuclear Agreement

[dust1n]

The President of the world's sole remaining superpower is trying desperately to stop Iran from becoming the middle Easts top regional power. Iran is winning, dude.
Laugh while you can.
Tom

Winning what, their proxy wars?

 

[LuisDantas]

Iran is clearly planning to change that.

Of course it is.

So would I in its situation, albeit I would not like that one bit. I am willing to bet that so would you.

As long as people are quite this primed to see military confrontations as the one way of solving things, military confrontations we will have.

Once they get the sanctions lifted they will be much better able. And despite the Obama administrations claims, those sanctions won't "snap back" at the first hint of dissembling on Iran's part. It will take months to even begin trying to reassemble the coalition of sanctioners, especially Russian ones. In case it has gone unnoticed, USA relations with Russia aren't looking too good now or for the foreseeable future. And in a China ascendant future they will have less reason to do what the USA wants as well.

You seem to be implying that the sanctions are being lifted due to the deal. That is not AFAIK even close to what is happening.

First, the deal is actually very restrictive and has a lot of leading time far as even considering lifting the restrictions go.

Second, without a deal the sanctions will basically erode overnight. The deal is meant to preserve, not destroy, some sort of control.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news.....
http://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-israel-not-responsible-for-iran-nuke-scientists-lives/
Israel threatens continued attacks upon Iran.

 

[esmith]

so it appears that there are those that think that Iran will play nice now. well it appears that is not the case. from the link

The shadowy Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani recently visited Moscow to meet with senior Russian leaders, according to two Western intelligence sources, despite a travel ban and U.N. Security Council resolutions barring him from leaving Iran.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eimani-visited-moscow-met-russian-leaders-in/
http://www.timesofisrael.com/breaking-ban-iran-quds-force-leader-reported-to-visit-russia/

 

[Revoltingest]

so it appears that there are those that think that Iran will play nice now. well it appears that is not the case. from the link
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...eimani-visited-moscow-met-russian-leaders-in/
http://www.timesofisrael.com/breaking-ban-iran-quds-force-leader-reported-to-visit-russia/

Relations with Iran will take a long time to improve.
(They're still smarting over our several direct & covert attacks upon them.)
Even now, Israel threatens attacks (see above post).
So we should expect Iran to pursue self defense & relations with allies.
If perhaps US & Israel behave themselves for a while, Iran could become less antagonistic, eh?

 

[Revoltingest]

Parenthetical aside......
When discussing Iran with its foes, I typically refer to some of our mutual history....

In 1953, the CIA executed a coup to overthrow a democratically elected leader in Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

During the Iran-Iraq war, the US supported Iraq with economic aid, military training, & WMDs (chemical & biological).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
(I love the irony that so many in the US deny that Iraq had WMDs. Not only did they, but we supplied them!)

There are more seamy escapades perpetrated by US, Israel, & allies against Iran, but those are the highlights.

I have never heard any acknowledgement from anyone in the anti-Iran crowd of the above.
Are they so committed to the weltanschauung of good (us) v evil (Iran), that they cannot face
the fact that our own despicable actions could cause the mutual antipathy?
And perhaps, just by behaving peacefully for a change, we might improve relations.

 

[esmith]

Relations with Iran will take a long time to improve.
(They're still smarting over our several direct & covert attacks upon them.)
Even now, Israel threatens attacks (see above post).
So we should expect Iran to pursue self defense & relations with allies.
If perhaps US & Israel behave themselves for a while, Iran could become less antagonistic, eh?

No, Iran wants to become the dominate power in the Mideast in my and others opinion. You may agree or disagree with this, but only the future will determine the consequences one way or another. I am only relying on human nature and history to come to my conclusions.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, Iran wants to become the dominate power in the Mideast in my and others opinion.

I'm not surprised, since they've good reason to arm up.
Being not dominant has left them open to repeated attack (both covert & overt) by us & our allies.

You may agree or disagree with this, but only the future will determine the consequences one way or another.

Oh, I agree.....I'm a big fan of checking out the future.

I am only relying on human nature and history to come to my conclusions.

I rely on the same.
Let's consider.....

Iran, with a population of 50 million to Iraq's 17 million, mobilised to defend the revolution. By the summer of 1982 Iraq was on the defensive and remained so until the end in August 1988. The death toll, overall, was an estimated 1 million for Iran and 250,000-500,000 for Iraq.
In the west it often seemed, even at the time, like a forgotten war. Far more attention has been paid to later conflicts: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the US-led invasion and occupation of 2003 which overthrew Saddam and changed the political map of the region.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/23/iran-iraq-war-anniversary

Human nature works this way.....
So long as US & Israel are willing to cause a million deaths in Iran (in a single conflict), use chemical & biological weapons, & continually threaten to do it again, Iran will be our enemy. If we cease being that enemy, there's a good chance things will improve. But if we continue to use embargoes, to attack covertly, & to threaten, we'll have endless conflict.
The Iraq war cost us over $2,000,000,000,000, & that cost is climbing.
Can we afford another war against another mid-east country?
And Iran won't be the 'easy' pushover that Iraq was.

 

[columbus]

No, Iran wants to become the dominate power in the Mideast in my and others opinion.

Of course they do.
They want that for a variety of reasons. For one, they want it for the same reason the USA wants it, economic power. But they also want it to ward off the threats to their existence, which comes mainly from the USA. You may prefer to ignore recent history, but they are not going to do that.
The Bush family is one of the main reasons Iran wants a nuclear weapon. And they are currently in the top contenders for POTUS.

Tom

 

[esmith]

Ok, it seems that there are those that do not have a problem with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons if they so desire along with ICBM technology. At the present time we are starting to see an re-emergence of the old USSR doctrine in Russia, China is rattling their swords in the South China Sea. Major cyber attacks are starting to occur with more regularity against the US and the possibility of a all-out cyber attack against the US infrastructure is a grave possibility. In view of an ever increasing hostile world does it not seems reasonable for the US to increase our spending in defensive programs like say a effective ABM program, devote more technology to defend against cyber attacks, and while we are at it stop downsizing the military and insure that military readiness is maintained.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok, it seems that there are those that do not have a problem with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons if they so desire along with ICBM technology.

I wouldn't go that far. There are problems with any country acquiring nukes.
But whom do we stop, & how far do we go in doing so?
Since we cannot stop Iran from doing so, we can at least control the time frame somewhat,
& we can influence their need or desire to get or use one. If we've armed Iraq once in a
war against Iran, what's to prevent us from doing it again? We can't expect peace from them
until we behave accordingly.

At the present time we are starting to see an re-emergence of the old USSR doctrine in Russia, China is rattling their swords in the South China Sea. Major cyber attacks are starting to occur with more regularity against the US and the possibility of a all-out cyber attack against the US infrastructure is a grave possibility. In view of an ever increasing hostile world does it not seems reasonable for the US to increase our spending in defensive programs like say a effective ABM program, devote more technology to defend against cyber attacks, and while we are at it stop downsizing the military and insure that military readiness is maintained.

I'm in favor of spending more on defense (not the same as the military), but my plans are
ignored by government, which takes a very narrow view on defensive measures.
Even though I'm a former weapon systems engineer, I see defense as much broader than
planes, ships, missiles, satellites, soldiers, guns & bombs.

 

[columbus]

Ok, it seems that there are those that do not have a problem with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons if they so desire along with ICBM technology.

Who would that be?
I am sure that there are some. But what I see is people who are ignorant about why Iran wants the weapons that the USA and our allies(like Israel, Pakistan, and such) already have.
And people who refuse to discuss how the reasons Iran wants the same military power their enemies have(the USA is the main one) could be reduced.

So how about we talk about ways that the USA could reduce the threat of a nuclear tipped Iranian military that don't involve threats and violence?

You never seem willing to do that.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

But what I see is people who are ignorant about why Iran wants the weapons that the USA and our allies(like Israel, Pakistan, and such) already have.
And people who refuse to discuss how the reasons Iran wants the same military power their enemies have(the USA is the main one) could be reduced.

It's a hard discussion to have.
I don't recall any anti-Iran-nuke-agreement types responding directly to it.
I wonder if they don't believe this history, if they find it irrelevant, or if it's
just too uncomfortable to face our fiendish & deadly hegemony?

 

[esmith]

Who would that be?
I am sure that there are some. But what I see is people who are ignorant about why Iran wants the weapons that the USA and our allies(like Israel, Pakistan, and such) already have.
And people who refuse to discuss how the reasons Iran wants the same military power their enemies have(the USA is the main one) could be reduced.

So how about we talk about ways that the USA could reduce the threat of a nuclear tipped Iranian military that don't involve threats and violence?

You never seem willing to do that.
Tom

I'm willing to listen to viable means of peaceful reducing the threat of a nuclear Iran. What say you?

 

[esmith]

I wouldn't go that far. There are problems with any country acquiring nukes.
But whom do we stop, & how far do we go in doing so?
Since we cannot stop Iran from doing so, we can at least control the time frame somewhat,
& we can influence their need or desire to get or use one. If we've armed Iraq once in a
war against Iran, what's to prevent us from doing it again? We can't expect peace from them
until we behave accordingly.

I'm in favor of spending more on defense (not the same as the military), but my plans are
ignored by government, which takes a very narrow view on defensive measures.
Even though I'm a former weapon systems engineer, I see defense as much broader than
planes, ships, missiles, satellites, soldiers, guns & bombs.

That is addressable but you still need the offensive means of a defense. And if that offensive abilities are reduced then your capabilities to conduct defensive measures are therefor reduced. Can't have one without the other.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is addressable but you still need the offensive means of a defense. And if that offensive abilities are reduced then your capabilities to conduct defensive measures are therefor reduced. Can't have one without the other.

By "defense", I include offensive tools.
I'm really into offensive.

 

[columbus]

I'm willing to listen to viable means of peaceful reducing the threat of a nuclear Iran. What say you?

Sure.

The USA could get rid of it's own arsenal, and impose the same sanctions on every other country with a nuclear program it does on Iran. Such as France, China, Great Britain, and Israel. We refuse to do business with them until an international agency demonstrates that they are nuclear weapons free.

Tom

The usa

 

[Flankerl]

Parenthetical aside......
When discussing Iran with its foes, I typically refer to some of our mutual history....

In 1953, the CIA executed a coup to overthrow a democratically elected leader in Iran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

During the Iran-Iraq war, the US supported Iraq with economic aid, military training, & WMDs (chemical & biological).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
(I love the irony that so many in the US deny that Iraq had WMDs. Not only did they, but we supplied them!)

There are more seamy escapades perpetrated by US, Israel, & allies against Iran, but those are the highlights.

I have never heard any acknowledgement from anyone in the anti-Iran crowd of the above.
Are they so committed to the weltanschauung of good (us) v evil (Iran), that they cannot face
the fact that our own despicable actions could cause the mutual antipathy?
And perhaps, just by behaving peacefully for a change, we might improve relations.

So are we going to excuse Irans continued support of global terrorism with the Coup and general Cold War stuff?

Or will the next one to look into the AMIA bombing also suddenly die?

 

[Revoltingest]

So are we going to excuse Irans continued support of global terrorism with the Coup and general Cold War stuff?

Excuse it?
Allow it?
Do you presume that I advocate this?
I don't.
But one way to oppose one's enemies is to encourage better behavior by example.
Beats going to war, eh.

Or will the next one to look into the AMIA bombing also suddenly die?

American Medical Informatics Association is into bombing?

 

[Revoltingest]

That is addressable but you still need the offensive means of a defense.

Yes, I've already agreed.
There's no dispute there.

And if that offensive abilities are reduced then your capabilities to conduct defensive measures are therefor reduced. Can't have one without the other.

I agree.
I like the idea of being the most militarily capable country on the planet.
Where I differ with conservatives (& apparently a great many fans of Israel) is in how we use it.