Iran Deal

Any political discussion should go here. This subforum will be moderated differently than other forums.
Forum rules
1.) No personal threats.
2.) No doxxing/revealing personal information.
3.) No spam.
4.) No circumventing press restrictions.
5.) No racism, sexism, homophobia, or derogatory posts.
Post Reply
Message
Author
JamesYanik
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: USA, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Probably still in bed
Karma: 36
Contact:

Iran Deal

#1 Post by JamesYanik » Wed May 09, 2018 1:40 am

So Trump is breaking out of the deal and imposing maximum economic sanctions.

I have mixed feelings, on the one hand if Iran start accelerating their Nuclear Program research now, shouldn't the other countries of the JCPOA still have to restrict them, or will they back down now since the USA is out (which would be pretty weak of them to do that and insult Trump for pulling out as well).

But the economic sanctions are meant to stop Iran from sponsoring terrorism. If there's a good effect, then I'm all for it, but it also can impoverish a lot of people in-country, and negative economic instability isn't exactly a deterrent for radicalism.

Then again the sanctions are what brought Iran to the bargaining table in the first place under Obama.

Under the Iran Deal, we can't put sanctions on Iran as long as they comply with non-nuclear development... I personally find it a bit strange that we were giving any sort of concessions to a theocratic regime with a myriad of human rights violations and illiberal policies, who have a bad history of supporting terrorism in neighboring states... but then again I never pegged Obama as a foreign policy genius in the first place when the deal went through.

My concern rests upon this:
- what else is can be done to prevent Iran from developing a Nuke?

PS; if your comment has anything to do with "Iran won't developing Nukes they have no need" then pray do tell why we need the Iran Deal in the first place, whereas we know economic sanctions are helpful in dissuading the regime from being much more fiscally open to terrorism?

thoughts, comments, something I'm not considering here? (probably a discussion about WWIII and Israel are missing but I just don't get what the massive fuss about this is)


After all, Trump is removing the sanctions.
1. If Iran builds a nuke, the moral blame is on them first and foremost.
2. If you think Iran should have a nuke because why can't they if we do, congratulations on giving a theocratic terrorist sponsoring regime a WMD, I hope you maintain a consistent stance on this after the fallout descends
3. If you're against Economic sanctions, then should we just ignore terror funding?
1

kaner406
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:40 pm
Karma: 24
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#2 Post by kaner406 » Wed May 09, 2018 5:50 am

I wonder if this is too complicated for the orange man:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oqvghou5m3U

JamesYanik
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: USA, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Probably still in bed
Karma: 36
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#3 Post by JamesYanik » Wed May 09, 2018 6:09 am

at about 1:40 the guy says "it would take them a REALLY long time to do it"

and then doesn't actually talk about numbers or dates. why? because the actual numbers are pushing it form 3 months away from getting a bomb to 12 months.

https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2017-0 ... -july-2017

so.

we open up their economy by lifting sanctions, they continue to fund terror, and we don't even have a guarantee they can't build a bomb, just that it gets pushed back to 12 months if they want to.

also at 2:00 he quotes (anon) one arms control specialist who says Iran would get caught 100% if they try to build one.

oh goodie. now I have no worries because that was a solid well-reasoned argument with many points of evidence.

frankly as the Iranian regime pushes influence into Syria, there's a massive landmass to cover and will the inspections are tight even by modern standards, this in no way ensures a nuke couldn't be built.



but Iran don't need a nuke anytime in the near future (unless things heat up more with Israel, but even now we're a long ways off from thermonuclear), so all this deal does is push off the sanctions effectively. the possibility of a nuke is still there, just pushed back a bit longer (with technological advancement, that time span narrows)

at the end of the day, the question is more to which would you rather have:
1. economic sanctions
2. nuclear proliferation deterrents
3. both
4. neither

I'm kinda at #3. not to mention, Iran STILL is helping al Qaeda operatives move in and out of country, with major suspicion of funding. if Iran wants their country opened up from sanctions, they should stop supporting terrorism.

and PS, if we want to talk about Reagan and North in the Iran-Contra scandal: I agree that shit is despicable, hypocritical, and did nothing but to help destabilize the region for quick money to South America. it still doesn't mean the behavior of the Iranian regime should be deemed acceptable by international law.

JamesYanik
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: USA, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Probably still in bed
Karma: 36
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#4 Post by JamesYanik » Wed May 09, 2018 6:12 am

and did we forget about this?

https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/middleea ... 1525846237

aggression against neighboring states, support for terrorism... that's no-no behavior

JamesYanik
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 5:38 pm
Location: USA, Oklahoma, Tulsa, Probably still in bed
Karma: 36
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#5 Post by JamesYanik » Wed May 09, 2018 6:15 am

this was literally 24 hours ago

https://twitter.com/AP/status/994080350891634688

kaner406
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:40 pm
Karma: 24
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#6 Post by kaner406 » Wed May 09, 2018 11:15 am

Why isn't this thread being displayed on the home screen?

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#7 Post by Octavious » Wed May 09, 2018 11:47 am

In case it frightens away new members. Politics is top shelf material and has to be hidden away from innocent eyes. Imagine the potential fallout if someone saw a snippet of a conversation that might challenge their opinion? Far better that they only see mafia threads, spam adverts, and those threads by people asking why they keep getting Austria.
3

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#8 Post by flash2015 » Wed May 09, 2018 5:38 pm

In the past two decades Iran has had two moderate presidents - first Khatami, now Rouhani. Khatami was making a genuine effort to try and improve relations with the US...but he was "thrown under the bus" by Bush with his "Axis Of Evil" speech. What happened soon after that? - we got a crazy hardliner (Ahmadinejad) as Iranian president and relations went backwards for over a decade.

Now we have another moderate as president (Rouhani) who was trying to improve relations through the Iran deal...and we have just thrown him under the bus too. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing multiple times and expecting different results. Whilst rejecting the Iran deal plays well to the Republican base, I don't think this is going to turn out well.
1

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#9 Post by Octavious » Wed May 09, 2018 6:11 pm

The fundamental problem was that the original deal was shite. Quite impressively in the field of diplomatic cockups, it managed to be shite for pretty much everyone. Whether that means tearing it up is wise or not is another matter, but the lion's share of fault lies with the people who made the deal in the first place.
1

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#10 Post by flash2015 » Wed May 09, 2018 6:24 pm

Octavious wrote:
Wed May 09, 2018 11:47 am
In case it frightens away new members. Politics is top shelf material and has to be hidden away from innocent eyes. Imagine the potential fallout if someone saw a snippet of a conversation that might challenge their opinion? Far better that they only see mafia threads, spam adverts, and those threads by people asking why they keep getting Austria.
And I never got a satisfactory answer to my Austria question too! :P
1

ksako8
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:26 am
Karma: 35
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#11 Post by ksako8 » Thu May 10, 2018 9:28 am

Why can Iran not have nuclear weapons, when Israel, Pakistan and India can?

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#12 Post by Octavious » Thu May 10, 2018 11:47 am

ksako8 wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 9:28 am
Why can Iran not have nuclear weapons, when Israel, Pakistan and India can?
The reasons are many and varied, but I imagine part of what counts against Iran is their habit of chanting "Death to America" in parliament, and their oft repeated desire that Israel should cease to exist. Ideally it's better if no-one has nukes, but just because we've failed on that score doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and hand out nuclear buttons to whichever violent nutjob happens to want one.

And that assumes the violent nutjob can hold on to power. Nasty little states like Iran are never far from the prospect of revolution. If they were to get nukes and the country imploded you then have the exciting possibility of the most powerful weapons on the planet being controlled by a some random military man who's just watched his country and career go up in smoke and has one hell of an axe to grind.
1

ksako8
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:26 am
Karma: 35
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#13 Post by ksako8 » Thu May 10, 2018 4:26 pm

Iran wasn't prone to revolution until the CIA started prodding. If the CIA had not installed the sjah, the current theocracy would probably not have existed.

Your reasoning is from a US perspective. We can have them, but the people we don't like cannot. So that doesn't convince me.

Octavious
Posts: 3844
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 4:16 pm
Location: The Five Valleys, Gloucestershire
Karma: 2605
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#14 Post by Octavious » Thu May 10, 2018 5:32 pm

ksako8 wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 4:26 pm
Iran wasn't prone to revolution until the CIA started prodding. If the CIA had not installed the sjah, the current theocracy would probably not have existed.
That may be true, but even if so I don't see how it's particularly relevant.
ksako8 wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 4:26 pm
Your reasoning is from a US perspective. We can have them, but the people we don't like cannot. So that doesn't convince me.
It's really not, but even if it was I don't see how that would make it somehow invalid. Nor is that an at all accurate summary of my reasoning. I'm fine with you disagreeing with me, but I'd prefer it if you understood what you were disagreeing with first ;)
1

User avatar
flash2015
Gold Donator
Gold Donator
Posts: 3200
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2017 7:55 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Karma: 1155
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#15 Post by flash2015 » Fri May 11, 2018 1:08 am

ksako8 wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 9:28 am
Why can Iran not have nuclear weapons, when Israel, Pakistan and India can?
Because they already have them...and Israel and Pakistan are long-term allies of the USA (India too more recently). Iran is a competitor for influence in the region and whilst nuclear weapons are largely for defence (i.e. to ensure MAD if attacked - a big reason why an attack on North Korea is not currently an option), it is possible that a single nuke could take out the US ally Israel.

It sounds like you are thinking international relations should be "fair". They are not fair. They never were fair. If you think like that you will be disappointed often. Countries largely act in their self interest. Talking about "right or wrong" or "justifications" for actions are often just marketing for countries self-interested actions.

Just look at the Iraq war. It was absolutely in US interests to take out Saddam. He would eventually wriggle out of sanction and too much of the world's oil supply was going to be held by powers hostile to the US. 9/11 gave the US the excuse to take him out. The talk of Osama "boogeying to Baghdad" and WMDs was all nonsense to justify the decision that had already been made.

In this specific case, I think the US has made both a decision which is against their long term interests AND I think is is absolutely the wrong thing to do. I believe it is fantasy to think that Iran after already compromising in a big way for the Iran deal are going to now capitulate completely to US demands (especially since the US is largely on its own here, and how can you trust any new agreement anyway?). The Iranian hardliners are already saying "I told you so". The future diplomatic options now narrow for the US - it is largely pointing to another US attempt at "regime change" in the next decade if they can find the right excuse for it.
1

ksako8
Posts: 103
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:26 am
Karma: 35
Contact:

Re: Iran Deal

#16 Post by ksako8 » Fri May 11, 2018 10:45 pm

Thanks Flash, that I understand

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 85 guests