Iran Nuclear Deal

[elsuper]

What are people's thoughts on Iranian nuclear negotiations? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/02/world/middleeast/2015-03-02-iran.html?_r=0

 

From that article:

"The deadline for finalizing an outline of an agreement is the end of March, and a final deal would have to be reached by June. Under an agreement, Iran’s ability to produce nuclear fuel would likely be strictly limited for at least 10 years. Restrictions would ease gradually. Some equipment would be shipped from Iran to Russia. After the deal ends, Iran would still be subject to inspections and unable to produce bomb-grade fuel. It remains unclear whether Iran would have to answer all questions from inspectors about its suspected work on bomb designs."

 

Do you think that's a good deal?

 

I'm asking specifically about the content of the deal, not about the character of Obama or Netanyahu.

 

Personally, I'm skeptical of the efficacy of inspectors, as they depend upon the Iranians to not conceal facilities as they did with Fordow and Qom. I do realize, though, that that logic leads to regime change as the only possible way to keep Iran non-nuclear, which doesn't seem great, either.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Iran is too radicalized to deserve Nuclear Powering. They'll just end up being the North Korea of the Middle east, and causing Middle East civil unrest just like Iraq once did.

[Red Huxley]

I will always be against the production of Nuclear Arms, but I am an advocate for Nuclear Power. As long as Iran allows Inspectors in and to allow them to their job, I will be happy to see Iran prosper. Although I disagree with their politics and social issues, they are a Sovereign Nation.

Bottom line. Treat Iran like you would treat any other Nation. Stop alienation .

[MRBOOTY]

As for your fear about hidden facilities

You do have to consider that the US and Israel have some of the best intelligence agencies in the world, and so finding them should cause no difficulties

That being said I do happen to agree with Fox

As much as I dislike the current government, it's not right to put them in a box

Or to have different standards for them

Russia is far more dangerous, and yet they have so many nukes they could swim in them

[Franz Von Dietrich]

@MrBooty Russia is something we couldn't stop from creating their own nukes. Iran is actually a chance in stopping their nuclear program, Iran would be a worst form of Radicalized North Korea in the Middle East. Do you want more civil unrest? And what if one militant organization were to able to raid the Iranian Nuclear Center, and take their research for creating their own attempt of a atom or nuclear bomb?

[Kenneth]

Iran is too radicalized to deserve Nuclear Powering. They'll just end up being the North Korea of the Middle east, and causing Middle East civil unrest just like Iraq once did.

Who decides what is or is not radical? I am sure in Ayatollah Khamenei's opinion, the U.S. is too radical.

[Solomon]

Who decides what is or is not radical? I am sure in Ayatollah Khamenei's opinion, the U.S. is too radical.

To be fair, it's not easy to step back and compare how the world sees you compared to how you see the world and how you see yourself. Important, yes, but not easy.

[Belisarius]

What are people's thoughts on Iranian nuclear negotiations? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/02/world/middleeast/2015-03-02-iran.html?_r=0

 

From that article:

"The deadline for finalizing an outline of an agreement is the end of March, and a final deal would have to be reached by June. Under an agreement, Iran’s ability to produce nuclear fuel would likely be strictly limited for at least 10 years. Restrictions would ease gradually. Some equipment would be shipped from Iran to Russia. After the deal ends, Iran would still be subject to inspections and unable to produce bomb-grade fuel. It remains unclear whether Iran would have to answer all questions from inspectors about its suspected work on bomb designs."

 

Do you think that's a good deal?

 

I'm asking specifically about the content of the deal, not about the character of Obama or Netanyahu.

 

Personally, I'm skeptical of the efficacy of inspectors, as they depend upon the Iranians to not conceal facilities as they did with Fordow and Qom. I do realize, though, that that logic leads to regime change as the only possible way to keep Iran non-nuclear, which doesn't seem great, either.

 

It's the best deal to prevent war. 

 

I tend to agree with Stephen Walt's assessment in asking "Is it such a bad thing for Iran to develop nuclear weapons?"

 

That is, what is it about Iran that would make it an exception to having nuclear weapons? To put it another way, is there something inherently different about Iran (as opposed to the other nuclear powers) that means it will use nuclear weapons in an offensive capability and not as a defensive deterrent? Because given the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by US-led forces, Iran has every reason to deter any acts of aggression against it. Seeing how North Korea's acquisition of the bomb has ended any and all discussions about regime change in Pyongyang, why *wouldn't* Iran acquire nuclear weapons?

 

Of course, the problem with the Iranian nuclear program isn't just Iran. The Saudis will develop their own weapons. And what about Turkey? or Egypt? If for the interest to preventing an arms race, then any talks that can prevent that scenario is good. 

 

I hope the deal sticks and that any talk of war settles down.

[Fox Fire]

Nuclear power is a Pandoras box. You can't stop it now.

[Odin]

They should better build wind turbines and photovoltaic systems.

Maybe they should be supported in building them, instead of only antagonized to build nuclear plants.

 

To refuse this help would clearly show their intentions.

[WISD0MTREE]

They should better build wind turbines and photovoltaic systems.

Maybe they should be supported in building them, instead of only antagonized to build nuclear plants.

 

To refuse this help would clearly show their intentions.

They are a poor country. What makes you think that they can afford to do it? 

[elsuper]

It's the best deal to prevent war. 

 

I tend to agree with Stephen Walt's assessment in asking "Is it such a bad thing for Iran to develop nuclear weapons?"

 

That is, what is it about Iran that would make it an exception to having nuclear weapons? To put it another way, is there something inherently different about Iran (as opposed to the other nuclear powers) that means it will use nuclear weapons in an offensive capability and not as a defensive deterrent? Because given the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan by US-led forces, Iran has every reason to deter any acts of aggression against it. Seeing how North Korea's acquisition of the bomb has ended any and all discussions about regime change in Pyongyang, why *wouldn't* Iran acquire nuclear weapons?

 

Of course, the problem with the Iranian nuclear program isn't just Iran. The Saudis will develop their own weapons. And what about Turkey? or Egypt? If for the interest to preventing an arms race, then any talks that can prevent that scenario is good. 

 

I hope the deal sticks and that any talk of war settles down.

 

But you partially answered your own question. A potential arms race is a fairly valid reason Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

 

They are a poor country. What makes you think that they can afford to do it? 

 

I think he was suggesting that it be funded by western countries to remove an excuse for uranium enrichment.

[WISD0MTREE]

I think he was suggesting that it be funded by western countries to remove an excuse for uranium enrichment.

We can't even afford it in our own country. 

[Six of Ten]

As for your fear about hidden facilities

You do have to consider that the US and Israel have some of the best intelligence agencies in the world, and so finding them should cause no difficulties

That being said I do happen to agree with Fox

As much as I dislike the current government, it's not right to put them in a box

Or to have different standards for them

Russia is far more dangerous, and yet they have so many nukes they could swim in them

We, The United States is the most aggressive, dangerous nation on earth, and we have so many nukes we could cleanse the planet of all life 3 times over. With our history of Aggression, why do we have any right dictating the policies of Iran or any other nation for that matter. whether we like them or not, the current Iranian government has never declared an offensive war outside their own borders over the entirety of their existence. 

[elsuper]

We can't even afford it in our own country. 

 

I don't know about that, but we certainly can't afford to do it for every country that tries to blackmail us into it by enriching uranium.

[elsuper]

What do you guys think of the Congressional letter to Iran: http://go.bloomberg.com/assets/content/uploads/sites/2/150309-Cotton-Open-Letter-to-Iranian-Leaders.pdf

 

I think it does more to create no deal than to create a good deal, which I find distasteful. If the Republicans want a better deal, they should pressure Obama, not the Iranians. Presenting a disunified front only reduces our credibility.

 

I also heard it violates the Logan Act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953

 

But upon reading both, I disagree. This isn't a private communication, and the signatories are members of the US government involved in ratifying treaties.

 

We, The United States is the most aggressive, dangerous nation on earth, and we have so many nukes we could cleanse the planet of all life 3 times over. With our history of Aggression, why do we have any right dictating the policies of Iran or any other nation for that matter. whether we like them or not, the current Iranian government has never declared an offensive war outside their own borders over the entirety of their existence. 

 

I thought I had you figured out, but you're more nuanced than I thought. I like that.

[Magicboyd25]

What do you guys think of the Congressional letter to Iran: http://go.bloomberg.com/assets/content/uploads/sites/2/150309-Cotton-Open-Letter-to-Iranian-Leaders.pdf

 

I think it does more to create no deal than to create a good deal, which I find distasteful. If the Republicans want a better deal, they should pressure Obama, not the Iranians. Presenting a disunified front only reduces our credibility.

 

I also heard it violates the Logan Act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/953

 

But upon reading both, I disagree. This isn't a private communication, and the signatories are members of the US government involved in ratifying treaties.

 

 

I thought I had you figured out, but you're more nuanced than I thought. I like that.

 

I think it is pathetic they are sending a message to Iran going against the freckin president. Like what the actual heck! Yes they dont like Obama but that doesn't mean you undermine him like that!

[Adama]

Politics stops at the waters edge.

 

You can squabble with the president all you like internally, but in international issues we need to act as a united front or no one will ever take us seriously, particularly our allies.

[Magicboyd25]

Politics stops at the waters edge.

 

You can squabble with the president all you like internally, but in international issues we need to act as a united front or no one will ever take us seriously, particularly our allies.

 

Agreed. It is things like this that make me further lose my confidence in our government. I thought even some of the idiots in senate had enough logic to not do something this stupid.

[WISD0MTREE]

We, The United States is the most aggressive, dangerous nation on earth, and we have so many nukes we could cleanse the planet of all life 3 times over.

 

With our history of Aggression,

 

why do we have any right dictating the policies of Iran or any other nation for that matter.

 

whether we like them or not, the current Iranian government has never declared an offensive war outside their own borders over the entirety of their existence. 

Nope. Please learn about nukes before you say stupid shit like this. 

 

Aggression as in? 

 

They could very easily use a newly developed weapon against us if we cut foreign aid, which we should. 

 

Yes they have. It is kind of against a group that !@#$ing burns people alive, but it is an offensive war outside their boundaries. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014%E2%80%93present)#Intervention

[Aisha Greyjoy]

We, The United States is the most aggressive, dangerous nation on earth, and we have so many nukes we could cleanse the planet of all life 3 times over. With our history of Aggression, why do we have any right dictating the policies of Iran or any other nation for that matter. whether we like them or not, the current Iranian government has never declared an offensive war outside their own borders over the entirety of their existence. 

Because 'Murica!

[Lucius Optimus]

No nukes for theocracies and regional destabilizes. Especially Iran.

[WISD0MTREE]

We, The United States is the most aggressive, dangerous nation on earth, and we have so many nukes we could cleanse the planet of all life 3 times over. 

Nope. 

 

And Russia still has almost as much as we do. 

 

[Fox Fire]

Nope. Please learn about nukes before you say stupid !@#$ like this. 

 

Aggression as in? 

 

They could very easily use a newly developed weapon against us if we cut foreign aid, which we should. 

 

Yes they have. It is kind of against a group that !@#$ burns people alive, but it is an offensive war outside their boundaries. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_intervention_in_Iraq_(2014%E2%80%93present)#Intervention

IS is a major national security threat for Iran, they have no options in that. We aren't going to declare war on Iran for trying to make nukes, and I seriously doubt Iran would nuke anyone else. I think Pakistan or North Korea with nukes is a lot more scary than Iran.

 

 

Nope. 

 

And Russia still has almost as much as we do. 

 

Nuclear holocaust is a pretty debated subject. I think it's probably possible to wipe out human life with modern stockpiles.

[Alice Lune]

Six of Ten actually has a point. Iran never attacked anyone. Sure, Ahmedinejad is kind of belligerent, but not the mad dictator kind of belligerent ruler.

 

In comparison, America is a lot more belligerent than Iran. They invade other countries, install their own puppet government and then they ran off letting the local puppets to deal with uprisings on their own. WMDs? Removing dictators? Please, nobody buys that, I doubt even Americans bought that !@#$ excuse. The rest of the world definitely didn't believe that America was there for 'world peace'. They were there for the oil and to beat up the rulers they don't like, plain and simple. The current IS issue can be attributed to America's invasion of Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Let's talk about Russia. Russia has about as much nuclear weapons as the 'great' Murica. They are also very belligerent right now, being directly involved in the Ukrainian seccesion. Now Poland and Lithuania is feeling threatened by Russia and wants to buy tanks from Germany http://newcoldwar.org/germany-selling-battle-tanks-to-poland-and-increasing-its-own-fleet/. Putin has made it very clear that he saw annexation everywhere in the Baltic.

 

Let's talk about China. They have a lot of nukes too, just not as much as Murica or Russia. They are also quite belligerent right now. No talk of using nukes has started yet, but they have already established a no-fly zone in the Senkaku Islands area (where only China's air force is allowed to fly), which is actually governed by Japan, as if they had already owned the island. They also sent patrol ships to exert dominance in areas around Spratly Islands, which are also claimed by Phillipines, Vietnam and Malaysia. This sparked an arms race among the nations of the South East Asia.

 

Let's talk about India and Pakistan. As we well know, they really don't like each other. One is a Hindu state while one is an Islam state. We haven't heard much fighting going on in Jammu/Kashmir, but I was told that violence still occurs there, though since it's no longer a 'war', the world media are not interested in it. Both sides have nuclear weapons, but what stopped them from using nuclear weapons during their two wars and one conflict over Jammu-Kashmir? Nuclear weapons. Since both sides have nuclear weapons, both sides are afraid of using it, since the other side can use it too. Say, if Pakistan doesn't have nuclear weapons, and India does, what's stopping India from dictating the war, since if India lost the war even a little bit, India can simply launch their nuclear weapons with impunity. Automatic win.

 

So you see, instead of thinking of the negative aspects of nuclear weapons, look at the positive aspects. Nuclear weapon is a shield, it is not a sword. Following America's track record, they will most likely invade Iran too once Russia stopped misbehaving. The only thing saving Iran at the moment is that America has two bigger problems, which is Russia and China. No, I do not consider ISIS as America's problem, because word on the street, is that America is funding ISIS in order to avoid having to deal with Russia, which would likely erupt into a world war. Don't believe me? Ask the Iraqi security forces who kept seeing their supplies being dropped over ISIS held territories 9 out of 10 and having to 'steal' supplies meant for ISIS. The US claimed that it was an error, but how many errors does it take before it becomes a pattern? How about asking the Iraqi security forces about how they were ordered by America to leave their base undefended and return to see the ISIS had run off with their weapons and supplies?

 

Iran wants nukes? Let them have nukes. Give them a chance to defend themselves. Give them their own shield, instead of expecting them to fight with sticks and stones.

 

Those who argued that terrorists can commandeer these nuclear weapons, your focus is off. We're talking about Iran owning nukes, not the hypothetical question if terrorists steal Iran's nukes. I mean, what's stopping terrorists from stealing nuclear weapons from China, Russia, India and Pakistan? Why is Iran being singled out as the only nation where nuclear weapon can be stolen by terrorists? Do you also know that it's easy to build nuclear weapons? Do you also know that people actually sell nuclear fission fuel in the black market? Why is Iran being labelled as the only bogeyman that will use their weapons? They had done nothing to the world. In comparison, America and Russia has invaded many countries already and America remains the only country that had used nuclear weapons against an enemy.

 

Sorry if my post sounds like I'm condemning America. I'm just sick of Americans who did everything they want without thinking of the consequences and then acting like their s**t don't stink while at the same time condemning others as if they have an absolutely superior morality..

Edited March 21, 2015 by Alice Lune