The Astonishing Rationality of the Iran Nuclear Deal

It interesting to hear from a well-educated pro on this issue. There is a lot of angry amateur noise on this subject, including a little of mine.
 
Some of us grew up in the time of Nightline x amount of days of Iranian hostages, USA=great satan, 1983 embassy attack in Kuwait, general and abject Hezbollah support, etc, etc. What exactly has the real Iranian leadership done to change the perception that they are to be trusted at minimum not to mention all of the other heinousness emanating from their collective Iranian mouth-bowels?
 
Last edited:
Read this and explain the rationality of it in the context of the rest the world
"
Thinking in terms of interests: Iran wants its own, indigenous nuclear capacity to generate electrical power, as well as for reasons of national pride, for power projection, and to preserve regional influence. Undeniably, it wants to retain the ability to build a weapon maybe someday. This is clear.

Iran wants this because its regime would lose domestic legitimacy if it committed itself entirely to the peaceful use of nuclear power,

So iran wants nuke capability for national pride? and because it would lose domestic legitimacy if it only produced peaceful nuclear power? How is that rational?
With whom domestically would it lose legitimacy? Who?
And we, the rest of the world, will let Iran continue toward nukes so they can have national pride?
Too bad the world doesn't care about the pride of all the people Iran is killing or supporting in killing.
 
6721-- There are a lot of proud, nationalistic Iranians. Otherwise they would not have taken the couse they are taking. Just like here, Iranian leaders are subject to criticism and loss of support. Jingoism has almost universal international appeal.
 
Croc
I am sure they are proud. Iran used to be a very advanced nation.
Let's say they want Iran to have nukes " for their pride" but their leaders specifically the Ayatollah did not
what could these proud people do?
Do you think they have weapons?
So they take to the streets and protest demanding the ayatollah give Iran nukes? OH that will scare Kahmenei.
Be rational, there is zero the average Iranian, even hundreds of thousands of Iranians can do against the gov't and you know it.

That was a BS thing for whoever wrote that article to declare.
 
There are elections in Iran. The politics and government structure are vastly different than here, but I think the government there is more sensetive to the feelings of the governed than you believe.
 
does the texas governor have more power than the 'elected' president(or whatever they call him/her) of Iran? I would guess yes and that is saying something. The Mullahs run the show.
 
I thought the article was a well articulated summary.

Evidently others on this board don't feel any American pride in the fact that we are the most powerful country on Earth or don't believe that Putin's rise in popularity is fueled in part due to his flexing of Russia's military might. In fact, nationalism is generally tied to military actions. Iran is immune from that though, apparently.
 
zork said:
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...white-house-democrats-alterations-116770.html
Aren't the Democrats who want this special? Shouldn't it matter whether they are attacking our interests via Hezbollah or otherwise? WTF?
Click to expand...

If you think you can force behavior change and limit their ability to get to nuclear weapons then I'd agree. We are coming up on the 45th anniversary of the revolt in Iran. How much has their behavior changes over that time? Until the mullahs die off and slowly relinguish power through attrition and demography changes) behavior alterations are a non-starter in any negotiation. I don't know about you but I'd be happy with simply restraining or delaying their nuclear weapon ambitions. Heck, if we can do this for 10 years THEN we can worry about the next 10 when we get there. If we do nothing they could be there in under 5 years based on projections of their current capabilities. So, while y'all sit on the other side of the room debating on how we'll eat the elephant in the corner I'm going to start eating it bite by bite.
 
Seattle Husker said:
If you think you can force behavior change and limit their ability to get to nuclear weapons then I'd agree. We are coming up on the 45th anniversary of the revolt in Iran. How much has their behavior changes over that time? Until the mullahs die off and slowly relinguish power through attrition and demography changes) behavior alterations are a non-starter in any negotiation. I don't know about you but I'd be happy with simply restraining or delaying their nuclear weapon ambitions. Heck, if we can do this for 10 years THEN we can worry about the next 10 when we get there. If we do nothing they could be there in under 5 years based on projections of their current capabilities. So, while y'all sit on the other side of the room debating on how we'll eat the elephant in the corner I'm going to start eating it bite by bite.
Click to expand...
I thought the sanctions were working? Why not increase them? Why give in? War is not the answer but neither is capitulation negotiation tactics.
 
NJlonghorn said:
I have been struggling to articulate why I think the Iran nuclear deal was our least-bad way to approach a very bad situation. This short editorial does it better than I ever could.
Click to expand...

This is a key quote from that editorial:
The best long-term deal has always been a temporary deal: Strong inspections coupled with ambiguity preserves Iran's interests just enough, and they give the rest of us the best chance of detecting, through the IAEA and intelligence, the decision to breakout.
Click to expand...

I listened carefully to the interview of Kerry on PBS Newshour yesterday. Since listening to that interview, I have become more convinced that the talks will fall apart on that very detail mentioned in that editorial. The following answer by Kerry is the killer comment:
JUDY WOODRUFF: Still, another issue; the International Atomic Energy Agency has said for a long time that it wants Iran to disclose past military-related nuclear activities. Iran is increasingly looking like it’s not going to do this. Is the U.S. prepared to accept that?
JOHN KERRY: No. They have to do it. It will be done. If there’s going to be a deal; it will be done.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Because it’s not there now.
JOHN KERRY: It will be done.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So that information will be released before June 30th, will be available.
JOHN KERRY: It will be part of a final agreement. It has to be.
Click to expand...

Can you see Iran freely disclosing what nuclear work is being done on their military bases? Iran did not agree to that in the framework. However, Kerry says that Iran must do that before there is a final agreement. So there is something not in the framework that must be in the final agreement. This is the brick wall that will separate the two countries in future deal talks. Either that will happen or Kerry will have to back-track on his above statement. Watch the negotiation on this particular question to understand whether there will actually be a final deal.
 
While I used to at least listen to Croc's pov, you just lost all credibility. Seattle Husker has always been well just way out there.

The majority of Iranians want to get rid of the religious leaders, especially the younger generation.

I don't give a rats *** about the USA's military might, for the most part we take pride in our Freedom, sorry you lost that perspective.

If it takes military might to protect my freedom and then so be it.......

Somebody correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the political leader of Iran win elections like 90% to 10%? Free elections?
Man you have smoked way too much dope in your life, you remind me of President Powers!!!
 
I think the Iran nuclear deal was our least-bad way to approach a very bad situation.
Click to expand...

Which nuclear deal are you referring to? The one that Kerry claims he agreed to or the one that the Iranians are claiming they agreed to?
 
Husker?
"We are coming up on the 45th anniversary of the revolt in Iran. "
They must teach history differently in Ne.
And like Popes when one Ayatollah dies another takes over. There is no evidence so far that Iran is becoming moderate.
BO etc is getting played . If Kerry does get Iran to disclose past military-related nuclear activities he deserves BO's Nobel
 
6721: Do you recommend any books or especially insightful journalists covering Iran? I honestly feel that what most of what we get from the media and politicians is so twisted, oversimplified and partisan that we're hearing a lot of feelings and not much fact.
 
Horn6721 said:
Husker?
"We are coming up on the 45th anniversary of the revolt in Iran. "
They must teach history differently in Ne.
And like Popes when one Ayatollah dies another takes over. There is no evidence so far that Iran is becoming moderate.
BO etc is getting played .
Click to expand...

It's not my history knowledge but rather my math skills that you should be questioning. I'd challenge that "no evidence so far that Iran is becoming moderate" stance. Rouhani is the most moderate President Iran has had since the revolution and was elected in a landslide victory with 50.88% of the vote. Surprisingly, Iran is one of the most Westernized countries in the Middle East which a very young and modernized demographic pattern. Look to the dancing in the streets at the report of a deal by the Iranians. The Iran-Iraq war demolished a generation of men meaning they have no baby boomer problem like we do. The Ayatollah has an issue where the population is moving in the opposite direction. They have already cracked down on their own Arab Spring once but the liberalism is still there.
 
I do not know whether a "final" deal will be in our best interest or not. I do find it odd that so many think or want war as the only option since Obama is trying to make a deal.

This is pathetic.
 
Husker
since you did not cite the year the Iranian revolution started who would know when you thought it started?
Yes some not all in the media like to call Rouhani moderate. This is the same Rouhani that gloated he deceived the West while he as the chief nuclear negotiator for Khamenei even as he continued to violate accord while advancing Iran's nuke program.
Now Rouhani has said Iran will not accept the continuation of sanctions, Yea that is real moderate.:rolleyes1: Rouhani and the Ayatollah are in complete agreement on outcome they will accept.

Iranians dancing in the street? Did you read what was reported to those Iranians? Those dancing Iranians think their country put one over on the West. Remember they also danced after 9/11. Those Iranians are so "westernized" they cheered and danced after 9/11 and they cheered and danced when they were told Iran achieved a victory over the West.

paso?
Who is calling for war?
 
pasotex said:
I do not know whether a "final" deal will be in our best interest or not. I do find it odd that so many think or want war as the only option since Obama is trying to make a deal.

This is pathetic.
Click to expand...

War, continued sanctions or a deal. Is there another option? Yes, I realize there is a lot of room between those options but in simple terms, is there another option that isn't being discussed here?

Notice that the level of sanctions only occurred within the last few years. We've had our own sanctions on Iran since 1979. It was only when we got the other big players like China and Russia to the table that they were truly effective. The assumption on continued sanctions is that those 2 players will continue to support them. I'd argue that's a very tenuous assumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top