Lifting sanctions positive effects? Alternatives?

[Underhill]

I have already applauded the point. However, it in no way makes the pollyannaish suggestion of a secretly happy large percentage of Israelis any less stupid.

Well it may help if you actually posted why you think that is stupid.

Anything aggressive done to Iran will strengthen the loons in charge. The ideal is to undermine the power of the religious zealots at the top. I see no way the official Israeli position does that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well it may help if you actually posted why you think that is stupid.

Good grief ...

 

[Underhill]

Good grief ...

Well your only response is that it's stupid because it will allow Iranian trade which will bolster it's military. Okay, but it's not like an Iranian military of twice it's current strength, or many multiples of it's current strength, is any real threat to Israel or the US. So why wouldn't some Israelis be in favor of a deal that means Iran is farther from nuclear weapons and has a chance, however small, of limiting the current regimes power in the future?

The reality is that Israels primary cause for concern is that in the future we might develop a closer relationship with Iran which may limit their future influence on us and the region. Physical threats of violence are a secondary concern. In other words some are afraid it will work.

 

[esmith]

Let see now if I have the facts straight about what Iran get's economically
1. They get billions of dollars released that is being held by the US
2. They get to sell their oil on the open market; estimated to be 158 billion barrels of oil (may take a while to bring in online though)

Now what are the possible uses for this influx of cash
1. Well we know they are supporting Assad so looks like Syria gets an influx of support
2. They support Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis rebels in Yemen, al-Qaida,Taliban, and other groups listed by the UN as terrorist organizations.
3. Seems they have a serious dislike of Israel, and the US (gee guys we just folded to your wishes what gives).
4. They get to purchase weapons from Russia (nice reset there Hillary) (what did you mean Obama when you told Putin you will have more flexibility)
5. They get to continue their development of ICBM's (let see now ICBM's have non-conventional warheads correct??? that includes nuclear, right?....hmmm)
6. I don't think they like their Shiite neighbors....but heck Obama thinks if you play nice everyone else will

From the above it is plain to see I don't think much of the deal; but you all knew I have a serious dislike with anything associated with Obama.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well your only response is that it's stupid because it will allow Iranian trade which will bolster it's military. Okay, but it's not like an Iranian military of twice it's current strength, or many multiples of it's current strength, is any real threat to Israel or the US.

Perhaps "stupid" was not strong enough. If you do not think that doubling Iranian military strength (and, by extension, the strength and capabilities of its proxies) poses "any real threat to Israel" then I'll leave you to your delusions ...

 

[Revoltingest]

But I could be wrong. I doubt anyone can honestly say they know what will happen.

I don't believe in knowing....in the sense of foretelling.
But I believe in sound strategy.
Those who play board games know that there are j

Let see now if I have the facts straight about what Iran get's economically
1. They get billions of dollars released that is being held by the US
2. They get to sell their oil on the open market; estimated to be 158 billion barrels of oil (may take a while to bring in online though)

Now what are the possible uses for this influx of cash
1. Well we know they are supporting Assad so looks like Syria gets an influx of support
2. They support Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis rebels in Yemen, al-Qaida,Taliban, and other groups listed by the UN as terrorist organizations.
3. Seems they have a serious dislike of Israel, and the US (gee guys we just folded to your wishes what gives).
4. They get to purchase weapons from Russia (nice reset there Hillary) (what did you mean Obama when you told Putin you will have more flexibility)
5. They get to continue their development of ICBM's (let see now ICBM's have non-conventional warheads correct??? that includes nuclear, right?....hmmm)
6. I don't think they like their Shiite neighbors....but heck Obama thinks if you play nice everyone else will

From the above it is plain to see I don't think much of the deal; but you all knew I have a serious dislike with anything associated with Obama.

This worst case scenario must be compared with the others.....
1) Continued sanctions, which they can survive, thereby giving us no leverage.
But it gives them incentive to cause us continued grief & massive spending there.
2) Pre-emptive military strike, which is only further evidence that they need the bomb.
It also risks inflaming the rest of the Islamic world against us. We had a defensible
reason to invade Iraq & Afghanistan...but Iran would be likely seen as very different.

 

[Underhill]

Perhaps "stupid" was not strong enough. If you do not think that doubling Iranian military strength (and, by extension, the strength and capabilities of its proxies) poses "any real threat to Israel" then I'll leave you to your delusions ...

If we were only talking about Israel of course it would. But there is no way the US, or most of the rest of the world for that matter, would stand idle for Iranian aggression against Israel.

I'm not arguing that Israel wouldn't care. That is silly. This is a discussion about the entire picture, not just one small aspect of the debate. Is Iran likely to attack Israel any time soon if they had a better equipped military? Of course not.

As for these proxies you keep talking about, the situation is much the same. Iran may be willing to send weapons into Palestine now, when they have nothing to lose. But the lifting of sanctions could, and probably would, disappear very quickly if they escalated things.

 

[esmith]

It also risks inflaming the rest of the Islamic world against us. .

Do you think that the Sunni countries in the region are celebrating the deal with Iran?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you think that the Sunni countries in the region are celebrating the deal with Iran?

I don't know.
But there are more flavors of Islam than just Sunni.
And our proposed pre-emptive attack on Iran runs the risk of uniting them all.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The reality is that Israels primary cause for concern is that in the future we might develop a closer relationship with Iran which may limit their future influence on us and the region. Physical threats of violence are a secondary concern. In other words some are afraid it will work.

The only way we'd have a closer relationship with Iran is if they became more democratic and less of a police state, and Israel would be OK with that, too. That would build many bridges between the three automatically. Actually all concerned would benefit from that.

If we were only talking about Israel of course it would. But there is no way the US, or most of the rest of the world for that matter, would stand idle for Iranian aggression against Israel.

The current administration would not, however USA is rapidly changing. The evangelical movement is also treacherous (my opinion). As soon as Israel is no longer useful as a prop, it will become an obstacle. The rest of the world has already shown its willingness to drop Israel, repeatedly, with few exceptions. As Poland was given to Hitler, so Israel might be offered in a similar way to the next grand enemy. Its the future, so we don't know. Nobody expected that Poland would be given up so easily, and it was a great country, really great. Nobody would have predicted that it would simply be given up by its allies. Everybody loved Poland, too; so it doesn't matter if everybody loves Israel or not. It doesn't matter that Israel is USA's ally right this moment, and look at how quickly people forget things, too. We forget things all the time, all kinds of lessons learned. Plus, do you realize just how many small countries USA is protecting at the moment? We've made promises to S. Korea, to Japan, to the many Baltic states, to many South American countries, all kinds of assurances to various islands. We're stretched to the max, so...how reliable are we to have stretched ourselves this thin?

As for these proxies you keep talking about, the situation is much the same. Iran may be willing to send weapons into Palestine now, when they have nothing to lose. But the lifting of sanctions could, and probably would, disappear very quickly if they escalated things.

Iran is kind of an unusual place. Nobody expected the current president to be elected. Everybody thought that other guy would be re-elected. I'm pretty sure USA will continue to think of Iran as a wild-card for at least the next 20 years. We just don't know them, and they don't want to be known. It benefits them to remain mysterious.

 

[ShivaFan]

"Whaaa! waaa! Don't be mean to Obama!"

No one is going to stop giving Obama the finger, if he lets Iran give him the finger why shouldn't I? You leftists haven't seen anything yet.

Only eight minutes went by after Obama came out to give his "historic" address to Americans (make no mistake, part of the Democratic 2016 campaign) on the great "legacy" of this "deal", and the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei comes out attacking communist China as an untrustworthy deal breaker and a sneaky leech, in one way, Iran is correct about not trusting the Chicoms, especially from the point of view of Shia Islam verse Chinese communism-crony capitalists.

Make no mistake about it, over the next years as the war takes shape, extremist ****es and commies really don't mix well, and in some ways China is even a greater threat to energy supply and hegemony than Iran. Not that the extremist Shia's are worthy of being advisories to anything, because part of what this is about is Iran sees China weakening economically but becoming aggresive militarily but there are a lot of Muslims in China. The way the world works is more complicated than at first glance, and Iran does see and desire Muslim breakaways and terrorism in China.

So almost immediately, Iran is flexing it's muscles and clearly has China on a target list, but this has been known as an interest of Iran for sometime. Already Obama's "legacy" is clarifying the map of World War 3 coming thanks to his idiocy and inane demagogue attitude, not listening to the American people and his Afro-centrist agenda.

And if I were Iran, of course besides seeing Obama as the fool who has straight-jacketed himself with his own identity politics, I would suspect Obama at every step.

Now Saudi, rightfully so, will want the bomb.

The Jews will not meekly let their children go to the gas chambers again.

The map of world war that Obama has taken will become clearer, and clearer by the day. My worry is also a weak Greece before Islamic hegemony. We cannot have a weak Greece in this war coming. Now they are rioting in the streets, both Left and Right wingers in open rebellion of the EU, which in one way makes sense, how do Italians and Greeks really identify with each other much less Francophiles and Greeks? I mean, other than having a bunch of leftwing losers who bankrupt society at every level.

So really, what America should be doing is helping Greece re-invigorate their own Greek identity and nationalism, support the Greek right wing and arm the Greek military to the hilt. This will also bring jobs to the Greek youth in the new, strong, Greek armada. In the Salamis Battle over the sea to come, we need to make sure our Greek patriots their victory.

 

[Banjankri]

For those that don't know the whole story:

 

[Underhill]

The only way we'd have a closer relationship with Iran is if they became more democratic and less of a police state, and Israel would be OK with that, too. That would build many bridges between the three automatically. Actually all concerned would benefit from that.

You mean like China?

The current administration would not, however USA is rapidly changing. The evangelical movement is also treacherous (my opinion). As soon as Israel is no longer useful as a prop, it will become an obstacle. The rest of the world has already shown its willingness to drop Israel, repeatedly, with few exceptions. As Poland was given to Hitler, so Israel might be offered in a similar way to the next grand enemy. Its the future, so we don't know. Nobody expected that Poland would be given up so easily, and it was a great country, really great. Nobody would have predicted that it would simply be given up by its allies. Everybody loved Poland, too; so it doesn't matter if everybody loves Israel or not. It doesn't matter that Israel is USA's ally right this moment, and look at how quickly people forget things, too. We forget things all the time, all kinds of lessons learned. Plus, do you realize just how many small countries USA is protecting at the moment? We've made promises to S. Korea, to Japan, to the many Baltic states, to many South American countries, all kinds of assurances to various islands. We're stretched to the max, so...how reliable are we to have stretched ourselves this thin?

Okay, but long term is the issue. And I think this is where we disagree. I think the goal needs to be making Iran reliant on the rest of the world. The whole reason they can act crazy, doing whatever they want, supporting whomever they want, is that they have nothing to lose. That status quo will continue so long as we have all sanctions in place. But once their economy becomes dependent on oil money and imports, all of that changes. Do you think the Iranian people would stand for a regime that sent them back to the days of the sanctions once they have a decent economy again? I doubt it.

Iran is kind of an unusual place. Nobody expected the current president to be elected. Everybody thought that other guy would be re-elected. I'm pretty sure USA will continue to think of Iran as a wild-card for at least the next 20 years. We just don't know them, and they don't want to be known. It benefits them to remain mysterious.

I don't see them as all that mysterious. They are a country trying to keep a world at bay when that world has been picking off their neighbors like flies on a window sill. The Palestinians are being gobbled up, Saudi Arabia has become an American puppet state (in their eyes) and Iraq is in ruins along with Syria. I think this presidents election was intended as a sign that they are willing to change, have to change. Because everything I have seen says the younger generations of Iran aren't buying the rhetoric about the evil monster that is the US.

I still say, and I am not the only one, that the main reason Israel, Saudi Arabia and some in the US don't want this deal is because it might work. And a lot of people don't want Iran, regardless of what changes in the country, to become more dominant in the region.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You mean like China?

Iran is more democratic than China relative to size. China is just very large, so its harder for China to have one face. Actually at the moment they are overall about the same in terms of top-down control, and Iran actually has different political parties.

Okay, but long term is the issue. And I think this is where we disagree. I think the goal needs to be making Iran reliant on the rest of the world. The whole reason they can act crazy, doing whatever they want, supporting whomever they want, is that they have nothing to lose. That status quo will continue so long as we have all sanctions in place. But once their economy becomes dependent on oil money and imports, all of that changes. Do you think the Iranian people would stand for a regime that sent them back to the days of the sanctions once they have a decent economy again? I doubt it.

Okay, but long term is the issue. And I think this is where we disagree. I think the goal needs to be making Iran reliant on the rest of the world. The whole reason they can act crazy, doing whatever they want, supporting whomever they want, is that they have nothing to lose. That status quo will continue so long as we have all sanctions in place. But once their economy becomes dependent on oil money and imports, all of that changes. Do you think the Iranian people would stand for a regime that sent them back to the days of the sanctions once they have a decent economy again? I doubt it.

It is not up to the Iranian people at the moment, and its not clear whether removing sanctions will change that. It would be good, but it appears there is a strong autocratic influence that comes from some imams in that region. Its certainly much more free than N. Korea though, and there is apparently some differentiation and some political dispute that goes on.

I don't see them as all that mysterious.

Did you see Ahmadinijad's speech at Columbia U ? It was like he was living in a cartoon. There was no connection between him and the real world. There was nothing communicated, no attempt to connect.

 

[Underhill]

Iran is more democratic than China relative to size. China is just very large, so its harder for China to have one face. Actually at the moment they are overall about the same in terms of top-down control, and Iran actually has different political parties.

My point is our country has no problem having ties to countries with regimes and political systems we don't agree with. We work with kings and communist.

It is not up to the Iranian people at the moment, and its not clear whether removing sanctions will change that. It would be good, but it appears there is a strong autocratic influence that comes from some imams in that region. Its certainly much more free than N. Korea though, and there is apparently some differentiation and some political dispute that goes on.

That is my point. I think removing sanctions is the only way to empower the people. It may not work, but the alternative certainly isn't.

Did you see Ahmadinijad's speech at Columbia U ? It was like he was living in a cartoon. There was no connection between him and the real world. There was nothing communicated, no attempt to connect.

He was a piece of work. I didn't claim to understand him. But I don't think Iran's mission or motives are all that mysterious.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As for Israel, I suspect they have to claim publicly that they are against this deal but I bet a large percentage in that country are happy to see it happen.

Let's hear from my happy Israeli brothers and sisters ...

From The Times of Israel:

Three-quarters of the Israeli public believe the recent signing of the nuclear accord between world powers and Iran will not prevent the Islamic Republic from striving to acquire atomic weapons, and only 10 percent the population say they trust the US to thwart Tehran’s ambitions to produce unconventional arms, according to a poll conducted Wednesday by the Sarid Institute and published Thursday by Channel 10 news.

The poll further found that 70% of Israelis oppose the nuclear deal, while a mere 10% support it. Twenty percent of respondents said they had no opinion on the matter. A third of respondents said Israel now had no choice but to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, while 40% opposed military action against the Islamic Republic.

Sixty percent think that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should lead a campaign in the US Congress aimed at stopping the agreement from being implemented. Only 20% oppose such a campaign.

Channel 10 did not state the number of people who took part in the survey.

 

[YmirGF]

Anything aggressive done to Iran will strengthen the loons in charge.

Um, I don't see how anyone could possibly suggest that the "loons in charge" of Iran are somehow weakened or have less influence... Just sayin'...

The ideal is to undermine the power of the religious zealots at the top.

So, you think we can undermine an authoritarian regime that believes it is doing God's work here on Earth? Seriously?

I see no way the official Israeli position does that.

That may be, however, when the entire political spectrum in Israel is panning the deal, people should sit up and take notice. Given that they have not found a viable solution I am perplexed how others, far removed from events on the ground, think they have their finger on the pulse of the matter and can put forth meaningful proposals.

 

[Underhill]

Let's hear from my happy Israeli brothers and sisters ...

From The Times of Israel:

​

I find it telling that 40% are against more bombing in Iran but only 10% are in favor of the deal. So that means 30% are in favor of doing nothing?

 

[Underhill]

Um, I don't see how anyone could possibly suggest that the "loons in charge" of Iran are somehow weakened or have less influence... Just sayin'...

Not yet. But when commercial interest take hold in the country, they will be. It's the nature of things. This is one of the reasons we no longer fear communist China like we used to. The communist are in a possition where anything they did that would lose trade and undermine the economy could put them in jeopardy.

So, you think we can undermine an authoritarian regime that believes it is doing God's work here on Earth? Seriously?

Why not? Every leader is dependent on it's people.

That may be, however, when the entire political spectrum in Israel is panning the deal, people should sit up and take notice. Given that they have not found a viable solution I am perplexed how others, far removed from events on the ground, think they have their finger on the pulse of the matter and can put forth meaningful proposals.

So you think the people involved in making this deal don't understand the circumstances there?

Why don't we get the opinions of some actual experts on this.

The experts assess the Iran agreement of 2015 | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

"The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists invited top international security experts to comment on the final agreement:

• Lawrence Korb and Katherine Blakeley, senior fellow and policy analyst, respectively, at the Center for American Progress, wrote that the agreement was "one of the most comprehensive and detailed nuclear arms agreements ever reached." Korb and Blakeley wrote that "a good look at the three main legs of the agreement shows that this deal is, in fact, a good one, for the United States and for the international community."[ Korb and Blakey said that the agreement "precludes Iranian development of a nuclear weapon by shutting down all of the pathways Iran might use to accumulate enough nuclear material to make a weapon" and praised components of the agreement which keep Iran subject to the constraints of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, provides for robust IAEA monitoring and verification, and links the phased lifting of nuclear-related sanctions to IAEA verification of Iranian compliance.
• Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat reduction policy at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, said that although the JCPOA is "not perfect," it "will be a net plus for nonproliferation and will enhance U.S. and regional security." Reif wrote that it was "clear that Tehran had to retreat from many of its initial demands, including in the areas of the scale of uranium enrichment it needed, the intrusiveness of inspections it would tolerate, and the pace of sanctions relief it would demand." Reif also wrote that the JCPOA "will keep Iran further away from the ability to make nuclear weapons for far longer than the alternative of additional sanctions or a military strike possibly could," and as a result, the threat of regional proliferation throughout the Middle East was diminished.
• Siegfried S. Hecker of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University wrote that "the Iran nuclear deal was hard-won and is better than any other reasonably achievable alternative." Hecker wrote that "Iran agreed to considerably greater restrictions on its program than what I thought was possible." Hecker's view is that it is "imperative that the international community develops a credible and decisive response in the event of an Iranian violation of the agreement." He noted that "this agreement was one of the most technically informed diplomatic negotiations I have seen," with both U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif being advised by "world-class nuclear scientists": U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz and Atomic Energy Organization of Iran chief Ali-Akbar Salehi, respectively."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I find it telling that 40% are against more bombing in Iran but only 10% are in favor of the deal. So that means 30% are in favor of doing nothing?

No, it does not.