Pictures of laughing Iranians seem to be the strongest argument that deal opponents can muster.
No, there are much stronger ones, but that one is quite visceral.
It’s a twist on the Groucho Marx joke (“I’d never join a club that would have me as a member”), arguing that we shouldn’t be willing to make a deal with any adversary who would agree to make a deal with us.
Pilots are known to joke that the FAA’s unofficial motto is: We’re not happy until you’re not not happy. In this case we’re not supposed to be happy signing a deal with the Iranians until the Iranians are unhappy signing a deal with us. But of course there’s no reason for them to sign a deal that makes them unhappy, so as with Groucho, it’s an argument for never, ever signing a deal with an adversary who would sign a deal with us.
Visceral, yes. Rational, no.
Wow, that was bizarre, Jim. Lost your touch? Where did Groucho come into it? Besides which, that’s Air Canada’s motto you’re misappropriating.
By that reasoning, it’s no wonder it is so blatantly lopsided.
“I’m still unhappy, you need to throw in another pony.”
“arguing that we shouldn’t be willing to make a deal with any adversary who would agree to make a deal with us.”
People would be happy with a deal if it prevented Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Any deal that doesn’t do that isn’t much of a deal. And we didn’t need any deal to continue interfering with their program but now interference is off the table.
We can’t interfere, we can’t have any US inspectors, we don’t get any US citizens back, we get to give back frozen assets, they get to keep nuclear material, they get to keep building a bomb just supposedly slowly, but we get to lift sanctions. Sanctions which allow them to flood the market with more oil, which lowers the already low prices, hurting our oil industry and more importantly are gas industry, causes us to continue a reliance our dirtier oil vs gas.
But hey, both sides get something, right? We get to avoid a war we weren’t trying to pick, from a country that supposedly couldn’t fight a war with us anyway?
Oh yeah, Noble prize paid for, future noble prize in the offering, and legacy of fail guaranteed.
You’ve been given plenty of arguments. It’s a shame that you can’t grasp the idea of an opposing idea.
Jim, you’re going to be butthurt when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty finally dies and everybody gets nukes. Can someone say… nuclear-armed Confederacy, nuclear-armed Golden Dawn Greece? You lot are already butthurt about Tsar Putin’s nuclear-armed Russia and its politically incorrect policies…
Well there’s that and that Obama left the fate of 4 Americans out of the negotiations a year after he gave up 5 Taliban for 1 deserter. I could add a few more items like Saudi Arabia now seeking a bomb, despite the administration claiming the deal would prevent an arms race. Alas, the picture says a thousand words as well, and none of them matter to a person already committed to Democrats even if they commit crimes.
To riff on an old Mel Brooks line:
Iran just wants peace! A piece of Iraq, a piece of Syria, a piece of Afganistan…
Actually the joke is only on guys like Jim.
Sensible people knew this was a bad deal from the get go. And we said so.
From here, and pretty much everywhere else in the world (going on what’s there to be read) the deal is a big step in the right direction, and given that the Iranian foreign minister laughing is somehow seen by several of the denizens of this blog as proof that Iran is the winner, Jim’s point sounds spot on.
In any transaction both sides should benefit, otherwise it’s not a deal, it’s an act of deceit or thuggery.
it’s an act of deceit
Yep, thread winner. Good job Andrew for clearly identifying the issue.
Heh, so now the claim is that the Iranian’s are so much brighter than all those who think this is a block to Iran acquiring the bomb, and that it’s only a relative few who are wise enough to see through their deceit.
Who does that describe?
Oh I know – Truthers and other conspiracy theorists.
“Heh, so now the claim is that the Iranian’s are so much brighter than all those who think this is a block to Iran acquiring the bomb, and that it’s only a relative few who are wise enough to see through their deceit.”
1) not a relative few
2) They only claim it’s to block Iran from getting the bomb. Obama and Kerry know that it won’t. Kerry wants his Nobel and Obama wants his legacy. Pap for the gullible masses. Incinerations of hundreds of thousands or maybe millions? Omelettes.
Oh, calling people Truthers and conspiracy theory, you really want to join Jim and such lazy arguments. Are you, Andrew, denying Iran has violated deals in the past? Are you a denier? Do you find such argument compelling?
Seriously, the people you consider wise were fooled by Iran just a year ago. It’s possible there isn’t deceit on the US side, but that’s just means they are idiots. Considering this is the same bunch that claimed “If you like your doctor, you can keep them”; I think deceit is the right measure.
How does this deal block Iran from getting the bomb? Obama himself says it would only delay them and that is if they play by the rules. But the rules don’t prevent them so even playing by the rules leads them to getting nukes.
Oh I know – Truthers and other conspiracy theorists. Realists who have seen Iran threaten the US with “death to America” chants for decades and have heard the call to destroy Israel.
Fixed that for ya.
“In any transaction both sides should benefit,”
How did the USA benefit? The deal doesn’t prevent Iran from getting nukes and we made a ton of serious concessions to not get them to give up nuclear weapons.
I am curious if the media you read is presenting this as preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
I’m curious if the media you read has read the agreement.
Long, long lists of “People everyone involved will swear up-and-down are good people now”. Promises to buy a French-or-Russian nuclear reactor or two. Promises not to slow down a list of arms shipments into Iran. Promises by the Americans to slap anyone that discriminates against the Iranians. Long, detailed discussions of the level of support IAEA wants on the couple specific sites (the -only- authorized sites).
Only four giant holes that I see, the least of which is that the advisory body (the one that makes judgements ‘Substantial or not?’ or ‘Access or not?’) has a provision for operating “on consensus … with no quorum requirement”. AKA: Iran calls a meeting to order, declares Iran did nothing wrong, calls for a consensus, hears only Iran saying ‘yes’. Or France-and-Iran for one thing, Russia-and-Iran for something else. There are some specific meeting dates – but there are also provisions for other meetings… with no quorum requirement.
Oh, and Andrew? Praise for the treaty is … required in the treaty.
Reading your link I noticed it says that Iran gets to continue enriching uranium, they don’t admit to having a nuclear weapons program nor to shutting one down, and inspectors won’t have access to all sites.
This “deal” is a sham and it creates the conditions that led to the Iraq War. Future confrontation with Iran is guaranteed because they are working on nuclear weapons, which this “deal” claims to prevent. Maybe Iran thinks once they have a nuke, no one will do anything. Big miscalculation.
“Matters before the Joint Commission pursuant to Section Q of Annex I are to be decided by consensus or by affirmative vote of five JCPOA participants. There is no quorum requirement.”
Joint Commission: Iran, Russia, China, France, Germany, UK, EU
Section Q: “Access to -other- sites”
Annex I: The entire section on monitoring, inspecting for nuclear material.
When I first read this, I was outraged at the ‘consensus + no quorum’ aspect.
But think about the “five participants” part too. There’s seven participants – and one is Iran. So the needed vote to inspect anywhere other than the explicitly over-instrumented sites with the dancing girls for the IAEA is 5-of-6. When we -started- from the position of France and Russia providing nuclear material and nuclear power plant designs.
Reporting requirements: We report only concrete findings to the Security Council quarterly.
Transparency: All aspects of our meetings are confidential, and explicitly exempted from UN, EU, or any other FOIA requests.
Hmm. Doesn’t seem like we even get to -see- the votes necessarily.
Hmm, no. There’s 8 total. My bad. Minus Iran gives 7, so 5-of-7. Still with no requirement that everyone show up so their vote can ‘silently’ become a de facto ‘no’. Also still not a vote I’d want to take at any time given the list.
This deal does have extensive monitoring, I think a more accurate comparison would be the deal with Saddam to ensure elimination of him WMD’s, which was successful, even though George W Bush refused to believe it, and some nutters still insist Saddam deceived the US, in that example it was actually the US that broke its side of the bargain.
it was actually the US that broke its side of the bargain.
UN Security council disagrees. The same council that will be monitoring Iran.
It is a very apt comparison because the same people who worked on the NK deal negotiated this one. Seriously, same people.
No, it does not. Basically we have to request access, at which time they can supply additional information to help clear the issue, then we have to request access again, eventually having to go to the UN to get a sanction if they continue to deny access. In every case, they will have at least two weeks notice to hide any illegal activity. Same as before, no effective monitoring. It’s not the stuff we know they have, it’s the stuff we think they might be hiding.
“Consensus or five” to say “Yes, that’s a valid issue – two weeks!”
The “consensus” route would require Iran to want the inspection.
The “or five” route with no quorum requirements and no reporting requirements…. Iran would have to tick France or Russia off pretty darn bad. And the easy way out for everyone involved is “I didn’t show up for your silly meeting.”
Actually, no.
Even the New York Times has finally admitted, about a decade late, that Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of nerve gas:
Now, who’s going to pop up here and say “meh, nerve gas doesn’t really count, that’s not REALLY a weapon of mass destruction” and move those goalposts further down the field?
All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
Nonetheless, as part of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, Saddam Hussein agreed to destroy his chemical weapons arsenal immediately. Twelve years later, it was all still sitting in the warehouses, ready for use.
This is what people in the business call “casus belli.”
Twelve years later, it was all still sitting in the warehouses, ready for use.
No, buried and unfit for use.
“All had been manufactured before 1991, ”
Yes, they were the same WMD we had been concerned about for over a decade before going to war, again. Remember, we were already in a de facto state of war with Iraq. They were in violation of the agreements made at the end of the Gulf War, putting us back into war. They were also shooting at our pilots on a regular basis, an act of war. Plus, we were constantly bombing them back.
In the book written by the FBI interrogator, Saddam claimed he wanted the USA and everyone else to think he had greater amounts of WMD than he did. Bit of a miscalculation on his part, he should have just lived up to the agreement.
Andrew, some of those WMD were in arms depots. And the ones buried weren’t in trash pits or something, they were being hidden.
Many were also in working order.
Reading the NYT piece, the military didn’t even bother reporting many of the WMD they found.
Andrew, some of those WMD were in arms depots. And the ones buried weren’t in trash pits or something, they were being hidden.
The words “depot” and “warehouse” aren’t used in the NY Times piece, your claim that they were buried to be hidden for later availability isn’t supported by the fact that they were buried without a wrapping.
Some of the WMD were stored with conventional munitions. Depots were broken into while the UN seals remained intact. Some of the WMD were buried along with other conventional munitions.
These WMD were weaponized by the insurgency.
Basically though, the WMD found was the same WMD that we had been concerned about the whole time. The caveat being that Iraq didn’t have as much left as the world’s intelligence community thought. But how were we to know when Saddam was playing games with inspections? When Saddam wanted people to think he still had them?
Also don’t forget, WMD was just one of the reasons listed as reason to go to war with Iraq.
The world is better off without Saddam. And the world will be better off without ISIS, which had been almost totally destroyed with only some key leadership and a shell of manpower driven back to Damascus only to be revived by the Arab Spring and an influx of American cash, weapons, and training.
Why would Obama arm, fund, and train groups like this? Because he doesn’t view their ideology as problematic. He agrees with their anti-American views. He doesn’t realize that they didn’t just spring up in response to Bush and won’t stop the quest for global domination simply because Bush is gone.
Also, don’t forget about the 550 tons of yellow cake we removed.
It wasn’t only Bush who didn’t believe it. The CIA also suspected,
Andrew – aren’t you one of the nutters who insists on the precautionary principle with regard to non-existent Global Warming? Interesting how you apply it in one case and not the other.
I suppose you could claim the same in reverse, but the difference is, Iran getting the Bomb is a definite hazard, whereas every indication is that a warming world would be a more prosperous and life-sustaining world. In any case, it is tu quoque – if I am inconsistent, you should be striving to be a better man.
Andrew – aren’t you one of the nutters who insists on the precautionary principle. . .
No,
Bubba has a different reaction to the Iran deal, however. This may explain why:
It occurs to me that maybe the Iranians submitted to inspections of their enrichment program because they figure their engineers have solved the plutonium implosion weapon problem and they have a nice little Pu production reactor squirrelled away somewhere. Look up how Stalin got the bomb.
I predict that when Iran has nukes, Democrats will say there is no evidence because the inspections never turned up anything. Iran actually having nukes won’t matter.
I’ve read over the treaty a couple times, and I can’t find anything in it that prohibits Iran from building and testing atomic bombs. I think they could nuke a couple cities without violating any of the provisions.
For example, they have to ship out their spent fuel so they can’t extract plutonium from it. But nothing says they can’t ship the spent fuel to the Russians, let them extract the plutonium, and give it back to them. Nothing says they can’t buy as much plutonium as they want from anyone will to sell. Nor does anything say they can’t possess nuclear weapons. They just can’t follow the steps that we think would lead to them building up enough weapons grade material to build one. But we didn’t actually say they couldn’t have one – or a hundred, if it was to land in their laps.
That’s covered by the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, none of the nuclear states are likely to sell Iran, or anyone else, weapons grade uranium or plutonium.
Laws only prevent the lawful from engaging in illegal activity.
Any agreement can be violated, so no agreements are worth making?
The completeness of the monitoring and the enforcement of penalties is what will be important with this one.
“Any agreement can be violated, so no agreements are worth making?”
Past performance is an indication of future performance. You are claiming that a “deal” will constrain them when previous deals have not constrained them.
“The completeness of the monitoring and the enforcement of penalties is what will be important with this one.”
There will be no enforcement with a Democrat President as the Democrats thinks its cool for Iran to have nukes or rather that they don’t view it as USA’s responsibility to stop them. Obama has already shown, way too many times to list, how he will ignore violations of agreements like this.
The key thing is, this deal allows Iran to continue enriching uranium and put sites off limits to inspectors. We know they were working toward nuclear weapons, thanks to Stuxnet, and claimed not to be. The same thing will continue.
I am sorry but any deal that allows the continued enriching of uranium, isn’t a deal. It is a delaying tactic to buy time until they have a viable nuclear weapon and Obama is complicit because he is using the deal as a delaying tactic as well to prevent anyone from stopping Iran, especially the USA.
You are free to pretend but please admit there are serious holes in this deal large enough to launch a nuclear missile through.
We know they were working toward nuclear weapons, thanks to Stuxnet, and claimed not to be.
We know they were enriching uranium, but Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Japan, and the Netherlands also enrich uranium. I’m not aware that Stuxnet provided any evidence of Bomb making.
There are no sites that are “off limits”, if the E3/EU+3 want the IAEA to inspect a site, sanctions can quickly be reimposed if access isn’t granted.
Hilarious.
That’s pretty much where I am.
Some 95+% of the nuclear portion of the treaty is focused on just the couple “Known Sites”, and how extensively the known sites will be monitored. I’ll grant flat-out that if the IAEA bothers to do half of what they’re required to do, the ‘known sites’ problem is fixed. So ignore them.
Then there’s a large slice of “Iran promises to play nice. -promises-.” Well, ok. But there is no trust -and- no verify here. Ten pages of “We -promise-!”.
The entire “We think we found a new site” mechanism boils down to these two sentences:
Matters before the Joint Commission pursuant to Section Q of Annex I are to be decided by consensus or by affirmative vote of five JCPOA participants. There is no quorum requirement.
It’s easy to find, it’s the only use of the word ‘quorum’ in the entire document. The ‘Section Q of Annex I’ part translates to “All decisions affecting whether this is a significant find, whether our issues have been resolved, whether further investigation is warranted, and whether we should submit it to the Security Council.” AKA: This is precisely the voting-to-determine ‘Two weeks + two weeks to inspect a new site’ block.
That is: This is the entire rules for voting/resolution. This is also an extremely bad block for the ‘Prevent Iran’ side.
1) Consensus will never be on the ‘Prevent Iran’ side on anything other than bureaucratic sillyness.
2) But Consensus will still be a problem, because it inherently demands that the US representative attend every second.
3) ‘Five’ is a problem number given the makeup. France, Russia, and China have been dragged into this entire business unwillingly from the very start. Yes, they’ve sometimes -said- a variety of things, but their -actions- have derailed probably thousands of pages of sanctions over the years. Russia and China are also -not- particularly worried even about Iran with nukes. Iran nuking Russia would mean Russia gets a warm water port. China would also make Iran regret it – and already has experience with a nuclear pet.
4) “No quorum requirement” -> Problem.
5) “No quorum” + “Five” -> Problem. Think “How are you going to get Russia to even show up. Oh, a bribe? Who knew?”
6) “No quorum” + “Consensus” -> Major problem.
The changes to reporting and secrecy -laws- to prevent any transparency -> problem. The changes requiring all aspects of and members to support the agreement -> problem. (The way it is worded Iran will be able to claim “You’ve violated the agreement” at pretty much any time it wishes. They have a defensible ‘out’ claim from day one.)
But enough about the paper-pushing holes.
Can none of the proponents honestly see -any- viable path to (A) make the 28-day-inspection plan completely laughable, or (B) Simply abuse a puppet corporation or de facto state to completely blow up both the ‘stockpile’ limitations or the ‘don’t do -this-‘ limitations? It doesn’t -have- to be Russia that they play games with, the wording is things like “sell” or “transfer” and “market”.
I’ve read over the treaty a couple times, and I can’t find anything in it that prohibits Iran from building and testing atomic bombs.
We must be looking at different agreements, in the one I’m looking at it states: “under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons”.
That’s just in the preamble, and the full sentence says:
iii. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.
You selectively quoted it to make it look like some binding commitment. It’s not.
Other crap in the preamble says:
vi. The E3/EU+3 and Iran reaffirm their commitment to the purposes and principles of the United Nations as set out in the UN Charter.
vii. The E3/EU+3 and Iran acknowledge that the NPT remains the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament and for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
viii. The E3/EU+3 and Iran commit to implement this JCPOA in good faith and in a constructive atmosphere, based on mutual respect, and to refrain from any action inconsistent with the letter, spirit and intent of this JCPOA that would undermine its successful implementation.
Kumbaya!
The Preamble and general provisions are as much a part of the agreement as any other part.
So if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, how are they violating a sentence that said “they reaffirm” that they’re were not seeking a bomb? “Well, we weren’t seeking one, it just found us. On to the next issue please!” Nowhere in the agreement do the other parties say “You can’t have a bomb.” In fact, the agreement itself guarantees that Iran will eventually be able to build nuclear weapons.
“Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.”
Except they already were, so to reaffirm their previous claims that they weren’t is just lying to your face, again.
“Call me cynical, but it would not be shocking if Iran releases the American hostages they hold:
Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday he raised the topic of detained Americans at every meeting he held with Iranians during the final weeks of nuclear negotiations and said he is hopeful Tehran would release them.
The Obama administration has faced criticism for not securing the Americans’ release as part of the landmark deal reached on Tuesday in Vienna to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
Getting worked up that the deal doesn’t include these four Americans is probably a political mistake by the deal’s opponents.”
The Obama administration did lie about this by claiming hostages were not part of the negotiating when really they were.
The photo was cropped. In the original version, you can see Baghdad Jim off to the side, cackling along with them and slapping his knee like a crazed old prospector.
I thought Lois Lerner might be Baghdad Jim’s heart-throb but maybe Libby Liberal is more his type.
Quelle surprise, Iran is already reneging on its side of the bargain:
Alan Dershowitz, who has worked on UN resolutions on the Middle East, suggests there may not have been a “meeting of the minds” on the Iran deal at all: “Is it a postponement for an uncertain number of years — 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 — of Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon? Or is it an assurance that ‘Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon?’”
Pictures of laughing Iranians seem to be the strongest argument that deal opponents can muster.
No, there are much stronger ones, but that one is quite visceral.
It’s a twist on the Groucho Marx joke (“I’d never join a club that would have me as a member”), arguing that we shouldn’t be willing to make a deal with any adversary who would agree to make a deal with us.
Pilots are known to joke that the FAA’s unofficial motto is: We’re not happy until you’re not not happy. In this case we’re not supposed to be happy signing a deal with the Iranians until the Iranians are unhappy signing a deal with us. But of course there’s no reason for them to sign a deal that makes them unhappy, so as with Groucho, it’s an argument for never, ever signing a deal with an adversary who would sign a deal with us.
Visceral, yes. Rational, no.
Wow, that was bizarre, Jim. Lost your touch? Where did Groucho come into it? Besides which, that’s Air Canada’s motto you’re misappropriating.
The Diplomad has something to say about this.
By that reasoning, it’s no wonder it is so blatantly lopsided.
“I’m still unhappy, you need to throw in another pony.”
“arguing that we shouldn’t be willing to make a deal with any adversary who would agree to make a deal with us.”
People would be happy with a deal if it prevented Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Any deal that doesn’t do that isn’t much of a deal. And we didn’t need any deal to continue interfering with their program but now interference is off the table.
We can’t interfere, we can’t have any US inspectors, we don’t get any US citizens back, we get to give back frozen assets, they get to keep nuclear material, they get to keep building a bomb just supposedly slowly, but we get to lift sanctions. Sanctions which allow them to flood the market with more oil, which lowers the already low prices, hurting our oil industry and more importantly are gas industry, causes us to continue a reliance our dirtier oil vs gas.
But hey, both sides get something, right? We get to avoid a war we weren’t trying to pick, from a country that supposedly couldn’t fight a war with us anyway?
Oh yeah, Noble prize paid for, future noble prize in the offering, and legacy of fail guaranteed.
You’ve been given plenty of arguments. It’s a shame that you can’t grasp the idea of an opposing idea.
Jim, you’re going to be butthurt when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty finally dies and everybody gets nukes. Can someone say… nuclear-armed Confederacy, nuclear-armed Golden Dawn Greece? You lot are already butthurt about Tsar Putin’s nuclear-armed Russia and its politically incorrect policies…
Well there’s that and that Obama left the fate of 4 Americans out of the negotiations a year after he gave up 5 Taliban for 1 deserter. I could add a few more items like Saudi Arabia now seeking a bomb, despite the administration claiming the deal would prevent an arms race. Alas, the picture says a thousand words as well, and none of them matter to a person already committed to Democrats even if they commit crimes.
To riff on an old Mel Brooks line:
Iran just wants peace! A piece of Iraq, a piece of Syria, a piece of Afganistan…
Actually the joke is only on guys like Jim.
Sensible people knew this was a bad deal from the get go. And we said so.
From here, and pretty much everywhere else in the world (going on what’s there to be read) the deal is a big step in the right direction, and given that the Iranian foreign minister laughing is somehow seen by several of the denizens of this blog as proof that Iran is the winner, Jim’s point sounds spot on.
In any transaction both sides should benefit, otherwise it’s not a deal, it’s an act of deceit or thuggery.
it’s an act of deceit
Yep, thread winner. Good job Andrew for clearly identifying the issue.
Heh, so now the claim is that the Iranian’s are so much brighter than all those who think this is a block to Iran acquiring the bomb, and that it’s only a relative few who are wise enough to see through their deceit.
Who does that describe?
Oh I know – Truthers and other conspiracy theorists.
“Heh, so now the claim is that the Iranian’s are so much brighter than all those who think this is a block to Iran acquiring the bomb, and that it’s only a relative few who are wise enough to see through their deceit.”
1) not a relative few
2) They only claim it’s to block Iran from getting the bomb. Obama and Kerry know that it won’t. Kerry wants his Nobel and Obama wants his legacy. Pap for the gullible masses. Incinerations of hundreds of thousands or maybe millions? Omelettes.
Oh, calling people Truthers and conspiracy theory, you really want to join Jim and such lazy arguments. Are you, Andrew, denying Iran has violated deals in the past? Are you a denier? Do you find such argument compelling?
Seriously, the people you consider wise were fooled by Iran just a year ago. It’s possible there isn’t deceit on the US side, but that’s just means they are idiots. Considering this is the same bunch that claimed “If you like your doctor, you can keep them”; I think deceit is the right measure.
How does this deal block Iran from getting the bomb? Obama himself says it would only delay them and that is if they play by the rules. But the rules don’t prevent them so even playing by the rules leads them to getting nukes.
Oh I know – Truthers and other conspiracy theorists.Realists who have seen Iran threaten the US with “death to America” chants for decades and have heard the call to destroy Israel.Fixed that for ya.
“In any transaction both sides should benefit,”
How did the USA benefit? The deal doesn’t prevent Iran from getting nukes and we made a ton of serious concessions to not get them to give up nuclear weapons.
I am curious if the media you read is presenting this as preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
I’m curious if the media you read has read the agreement.
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21657654-nuclear-deal-marks-milestone-irans-relations-world-details-matter-wary-hope
Media? I read the agreement myself:
here
Long, long lists of “People everyone involved will swear up-and-down are good people now”. Promises to buy a French-or-Russian nuclear reactor or two. Promises not to slow down a list of arms shipments into Iran. Promises by the Americans to slap anyone that discriminates against the Iranians. Long, detailed discussions of the level of support IAEA wants on the couple specific sites (the -only- authorized sites).
Only four giant holes that I see, the least of which is that the advisory body (the one that makes judgements ‘Substantial or not?’ or ‘Access or not?’) has a provision for operating “on consensus … with no quorum requirement”. AKA: Iran calls a meeting to order, declares Iran did nothing wrong, calls for a consensus, hears only Iran saying ‘yes’. Or France-and-Iran for one thing, Russia-and-Iran for something else. There are some specific meeting dates – but there are also provisions for other meetings… with no quorum requirement.
Oh, and Andrew? Praise for the treaty is … required in the treaty.
Reading your link I noticed it says that Iran gets to continue enriching uranium, they don’t admit to having a nuclear weapons program nor to shutting one down, and inspectors won’t have access to all sites.
This “deal” is a sham and it creates the conditions that led to the Iraq War. Future confrontation with Iran is guaranteed because they are working on nuclear weapons, which this “deal” claims to prevent. Maybe Iran thinks once they have a nuke, no one will do anything. Big miscalculation.
“Matters before the Joint Commission pursuant to Section Q of Annex I are to be decided by consensus or by affirmative vote of five JCPOA participants. There is no quorum requirement.”
Joint Commission: Iran, Russia, China, France, Germany, UK, EU
Section Q: “Access to -other- sites”
Annex I: The entire section on monitoring, inspecting for nuclear material.
When I first read this, I was outraged at the ‘consensus + no quorum’ aspect.
But think about the “five participants” part too. There’s seven participants – and one is Iran. So the needed vote to inspect anywhere other than the explicitly over-instrumented sites with the dancing girls for the IAEA is 5-of-6. When we -started- from the position of France and Russia providing nuclear material and nuclear power plant designs.
Reporting requirements: We report only concrete findings to the Security Council quarterly.
Transparency: All aspects of our meetings are confidential, and explicitly exempted from UN, EU, or any other FOIA requests.
Hmm. Doesn’t seem like we even get to -see- the votes necessarily.
Hmm, no. There’s 8 total. My bad. Minus Iran gives 7, so 5-of-7. Still with no requirement that everyone show up so their vote can ‘silently’ become a de facto ‘no’. Also still not a vote I’d want to take at any time given the list.
Worth remembering.
This deal does have extensive monitoring, I think a more accurate comparison would be the deal with Saddam to ensure elimination of him WMD’s, which was successful, even though George W Bush refused to believe it, and some nutters still insist Saddam deceived the US, in that example it was actually the US that broke its side of the bargain.
it was actually the US that broke its side of the bargain.
UN Security council disagrees. The same council that will be monitoring Iran.
It is a very apt comparison because the same people who worked on the NK deal negotiated this one. Seriously, same people.
No, it does not. Basically we have to request access, at which time they can supply additional information to help clear the issue, then we have to request access again, eventually having to go to the UN to get a sanction if they continue to deny access. In every case, they will have at least two weeks notice to hide any illegal activity. Same as before, no effective monitoring. It’s not the stuff we know they have, it’s the stuff we think they might be hiding.
“Consensus or five” to say “Yes, that’s a valid issue – two weeks!”
The “consensus” route would require Iran to want the inspection.
The “or five” route with no quorum requirements and no reporting requirements…. Iran would have to tick France or Russia off pretty darn bad. And the easy way out for everyone involved is “I didn’t show up for your silly meeting.”
Actually, no.
Even the New York Times has finally admitted, about a decade late, that Saddam Hussein had vast stockpiles of nerve gas:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html
Now, who’s going to pop up here and say “meh, nerve gas doesn’t really count, that’s not REALLY a weapon of mass destruction” and move those goalposts further down the field?
All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.
These weapons had been dumped, not disposed of properly, it happens, here are other examples:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10353207
Nonetheless, as part of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, Saddam Hussein agreed to destroy his chemical weapons arsenal immediately. Twelve years later, it was all still sitting in the warehouses, ready for use.
This is what people in the business call “casus belli.”
Twelve years later, it was all still sitting in the warehouses, ready for use.
No, buried and unfit for use.
“All had been manufactured before 1991, ”
Yes, they were the same WMD we had been concerned about for over a decade before going to war, again. Remember, we were already in a de facto state of war with Iraq. They were in violation of the agreements made at the end of the Gulf War, putting us back into war. They were also shooting at our pilots on a regular basis, an act of war. Plus, we were constantly bombing them back.
In the book written by the FBI interrogator, Saddam claimed he wanted the USA and everyone else to think he had greater amounts of WMD than he did. Bit of a miscalculation on his part, he should have just lived up to the agreement.
Andrew, some of those WMD were in arms depots. And the ones buried weren’t in trash pits or something, they were being hidden.
Many were also in working order.
Reading the NYT piece, the military didn’t even bother reporting many of the WMD they found.
Andrew, some of those WMD were in arms depots. And the ones buried weren’t in trash pits or something, they were being hidden.
The words “depot” and “warehouse” aren’t used in the NY Times piece, your claim that they were buried to be hidden for later availability isn’t supported by the fact that they were buried without a wrapping.
Some of the WMD were stored with conventional munitions. Depots were broken into while the UN seals remained intact. Some of the WMD were buried along with other conventional munitions.
These WMD were weaponized by the insurgency.
Basically though, the WMD found was the same WMD that we had been concerned about the whole time. The caveat being that Iraq didn’t have as much left as the world’s intelligence community thought. But how were we to know when Saddam was playing games with inspections? When Saddam wanted people to think he still had them?
Also don’t forget, WMD was just one of the reasons listed as reason to go to war with Iraq.
The world is better off without Saddam. And the world will be better off without ISIS, which had been almost totally destroyed with only some key leadership and a shell of manpower driven back to Damascus only to be revived by the Arab Spring and an influx of American cash, weapons, and training.
Why would Obama arm, fund, and train groups like this? Because he doesn’t view their ideology as problematic. He agrees with their anti-American views. He doesn’t realize that they didn’t just spring up in response to Bush and won’t stop the quest for global domination simply because Bush is gone.
Also, don’t forget about the 550 tons of yellow cake we removed.
It wasn’t only Bush who didn’t believe it. The CIA also suspected,
Andrew – aren’t you one of the nutters who insists on the precautionary principle with regard to non-existent Global Warming? Interesting how you apply it in one case and not the other.
I suppose you could claim the same in reverse, but the difference is, Iran getting the Bomb is a definite hazard, whereas every indication is that a warming world would be a more prosperous and life-sustaining world. In any case, it is tu quoque – if I am inconsistent, you should be striving to be a better man.
Andrew – aren’t you one of the nutters who insists on the precautionary principle. . .
No,
Bubba has a different reaction to the Iran deal, however. This may explain why:
http://regretfulmorning.com/2015/07/sexy-models-from-iran/
It occurs to me that maybe the Iranians submitted to inspections of their enrichment program because they figure their engineers have solved the plutonium implosion weapon problem and they have a nice little Pu production reactor squirrelled away somewhere. Look up how Stalin got the bomb.
I predict that when Iran has nukes, Democrats will say there is no evidence because the inspections never turned up anything. Iran actually having nukes won’t matter.
I’ve read over the treaty a couple times, and I can’t find anything in it that prohibits Iran from building and testing atomic bombs. I think they could nuke a couple cities without violating any of the provisions.
For example, they have to ship out their spent fuel so they can’t extract plutonium from it. But nothing says they can’t ship the spent fuel to the Russians, let them extract the plutonium, and give it back to them. Nothing says they can’t buy as much plutonium as they want from anyone will to sell. Nor does anything say they can’t possess nuclear weapons. They just can’t follow the steps that we think would lead to them building up enough weapons grade material to build one. But we didn’t actually say they couldn’t have one – or a hundred, if it was to land in their laps.
That’s covered by the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, none of the nuclear states are likely to sell Iran, or anyone else, weapons grade uranium or plutonium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
The NPT that Iran is has already been violating?
Laws only prevent the lawful from engaging in illegal activity.
Any agreement can be violated, so no agreements are worth making?
The completeness of the monitoring and the enforcement of penalties is what will be important with this one.
“Any agreement can be violated, so no agreements are worth making?”
Past performance is an indication of future performance. You are claiming that a “deal” will constrain them when previous deals have not constrained them.
“The completeness of the monitoring and the enforcement of penalties is what will be important with this one.”
There will be no enforcement with a Democrat President as the Democrats thinks its cool for Iran to have nukes or rather that they don’t view it as USA’s responsibility to stop them. Obama has already shown, way too many times to list, how he will ignore violations of agreements like this.
The key thing is, this deal allows Iran to continue enriching uranium and put sites off limits to inspectors. We know they were working toward nuclear weapons, thanks to Stuxnet, and claimed not to be. The same thing will continue.
I am sorry but any deal that allows the continued enriching of uranium, isn’t a deal. It is a delaying tactic to buy time until they have a viable nuclear weapon and Obama is complicit because he is using the deal as a delaying tactic as well to prevent anyone from stopping Iran, especially the USA.
You are free to pretend but please admit there are serious holes in this deal large enough to launch a nuclear missile through.
We know they were working toward nuclear weapons, thanks to Stuxnet, and claimed not to be.
We know they were enriching uranium, but Argentina, Brazil, Germany, Japan, and the Netherlands also enrich uranium. I’m not aware that Stuxnet provided any evidence of Bomb making.
There are no sites that are “off limits”, if the E3/EU+3 want the IAEA to inspect a site, sanctions can quickly be reimposed if access isn’t granted.
Hilarious.
That’s pretty much where I am.
Some 95+% of the nuclear portion of the treaty is focused on just the couple “Known Sites”, and how extensively the known sites will be monitored. I’ll grant flat-out that if the IAEA bothers to do half of what they’re required to do, the ‘known sites’ problem is fixed. So ignore them.
Then there’s a large slice of “Iran promises to play nice. -promises-.” Well, ok. But there is no trust -and- no verify here. Ten pages of “We -promise-!”.
The entire “We think we found a new site” mechanism boils down to these two sentences:
Matters before the Joint Commission pursuant to Section Q of Annex I are to be decided by consensus or by affirmative vote of five JCPOA participants. There is no quorum requirement.
It’s easy to find, it’s the only use of the word ‘quorum’ in the entire document. The ‘Section Q of Annex I’ part translates to “All decisions affecting whether this is a significant find, whether our issues have been resolved, whether further investigation is warranted, and whether we should submit it to the Security Council.” AKA: This is precisely the voting-to-determine ‘Two weeks + two weeks to inspect a new site’ block.
That is: This is the entire rules for voting/resolution. This is also an extremely bad block for the ‘Prevent Iran’ side.
1) Consensus will never be on the ‘Prevent Iran’ side on anything other than bureaucratic sillyness.
2) But Consensus will still be a problem, because it inherently demands that the US representative attend every second.
3) ‘Five’ is a problem number given the makeup. France, Russia, and China have been dragged into this entire business unwillingly from the very start. Yes, they’ve sometimes -said- a variety of things, but their -actions- have derailed probably thousands of pages of sanctions over the years. Russia and China are also -not- particularly worried even about Iran with nukes. Iran nuking Russia would mean Russia gets a warm water port. China would also make Iran regret it – and already has experience with a nuclear pet.
4) “No quorum requirement” -> Problem.
5) “No quorum” + “Five” -> Problem. Think “How are you going to get Russia to even show up. Oh, a bribe? Who knew?”
6) “No quorum” + “Consensus” -> Major problem.
The changes to reporting and secrecy -laws- to prevent any transparency -> problem. The changes requiring all aspects of and members to support the agreement -> problem. (The way it is worded Iran will be able to claim “You’ve violated the agreement” at pretty much any time it wishes. They have a defensible ‘out’ claim from day one.)
But enough about the paper-pushing holes.
Can none of the proponents honestly see -any- viable path to (A) make the 28-day-inspection plan completely laughable, or (B) Simply abuse a puppet corporation or de facto state to completely blow up both the ‘stockpile’ limitations or the ‘don’t do -this-‘ limitations? It doesn’t -have- to be Russia that they play games with, the wording is things like “sell” or “transfer” and “market”.
I’ve read over the treaty a couple times, and I can’t find anything in it that prohibits Iran from building and testing atomic bombs.
We must be looking at different agreements, in the one I’m looking at it states: “under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons”.
That’s just in the preamble, and the full sentence says:
You selectively quoted it to make it look like some binding commitment. It’s not.
Other crap in the preamble says:
Kumbaya!
The Preamble and general provisions are as much a part of the agreement as any other part.
So if Iran develops a nuclear bomb, how are they violating a sentence that said “they reaffirm” that they’re were not seeking a bomb? “Well, we weren’t seeking one, it just found us. On to the next issue please!” Nowhere in the agreement do the other parties say “You can’t have a bomb.” In fact, the agreement itself guarantees that Iran will eventually be able to build nuclear weapons.
“Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.”
Except they already were, so to reaffirm their previous claims that they weren’t is just lying to your face, again.
Here is an interesting take on the hostages, http://thedignifiedrant.blogspot.com/2015/07/proof-of-success.html
“Call me cynical, but it would not be shocking if Iran releases the American hostages they hold:
Secretary of State John Kerry said on Friday he raised the topic of detained Americans at every meeting he held with Iranians during the final weeks of nuclear negotiations and said he is hopeful Tehran would release them.
The Obama administration has faced criticism for not securing the Americans’ release as part of the landmark deal reached on Tuesday in Vienna to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
Getting worked up that the deal doesn’t include these four Americans is probably a political mistake by the deal’s opponents.”
The Obama administration did lie about this by claiming hostages were not part of the negotiating when really they were.
The photo was cropped. In the original version, you can see Baghdad Jim off to the side, cackling along with them and slapping his knee like a crazed old prospector.
This is funny, too:
http://www.imao.us/index.php/2015/07/smart/
I thought Lois Lerner might be Baghdad Jim’s heart-throb but maybe Libby Liberal is more his type.
Quelle surprise, Iran is already reneging on its side of the bargain:
Alan Dershowitz, who has worked on UN resolutions on the Middle East, suggests there may not have been a “meeting of the minds” on the Iran deal at all: “Is it a postponement for an uncertain number of years — 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 — of Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon? Or is it an assurance that ‘Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon?’”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/20/there-is-no-iran-deal-west-iran-differ-sharply-over-terms/