Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Iran







Post#1 at 10-23-2014 12:18 AM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
10-23-2014, 12:18 AM #1
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Iran

An interesting generational take on Iran from Behnam Ben Taleblu at the National Interest. Looking at it through the lens of TFT, it seems pretty clear to me that the Revolution / Iran-Iraq War was the last Crisis for Iran, and that they are clearly in the early stages of an Awakening. Conveniently enough, there were 20 years between the conclusion of the war and the Green Revolution in '09.

Also coming up on crunch time for the nuclear negotiations, and if Obama/Rouhani don't pull something out of their asses soon, the drift towards war should begin again. In either event, a thread should be available for that as well.

Also interesting to see the rising profile of Qassem Suleimani (A Civic Archetype if ever there was one) in recent news. Preparation for a 2017 Presidential run? If so, you heard it here first.







Post#2 at 07-14-2015 04:46 AM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
07-14-2015, 04:46 AM #2
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Hey, hey, a deal to be announced today! This should be interesting.







Post#3 at 07-14-2015 10:34 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
07-14-2015, 10:34 AM #3
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
Hey, hey, a deal to be announced today! This should be interesting.
Do you have a take? My first impression is its a good deal on the nuke issue. Gives Iran a pretty free hand in foreign policy, but that does not concern me. It is going to be a big issue for others though.







Post#4 at 07-14-2015 11:12 AM by XYMOX_4AD_84 [at joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,073]
---
07-14-2015, 11:12 AM #4
Join Date
Nov 2012
Posts
3,073

We were modeling a bombing raid on Iran involving earth penetrating weapons (for sure conventional ones and maybe even nukes).

Then last week we announced the test of the new fin assembly for B61s (which will make them precision guided munitions) was a success and we will commence the upgrades.

No doubt that helped the Iranians to accept the deal.

"I'm gonna make him an offer .... he can't refuse ... "







Post#5 at 07-14-2015 12:03 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-14-2015, 12:03 PM #5
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

My prediction fulfilled; the Iran deal is done.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/fo...licy/iran-deal
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#6 at 07-14-2015 02:01 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
07-14-2015, 02:01 PM #6
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

We're certainly going to hear this and that about how terrible the deal is for the US and how the Iranians hoodwinked Obama/Kerry, won't abide by it, will soon result in da bomb someday soon, etc., etc.

What I keep going back to is how Bush2 trashed the Clinton negotiating tactic with N. Korea and went with the neoCons' hang tough with the Axis of Evil strategy. The result - N. Korea today is not only nuclear armed but has ICBM capacity.

As time goes on, and should the Iranian deal get us and them on a sustainable peaceful track, there is going to be more and more comparisons between Bush-N.Korea and Obama-Iran. Perhaps longer term, W being considered to have caused the biggest foreign policy blunder in a 100 years will actually be determined to have nothing to do with Iraq.

And people still believe in the false equivalency of the two parties. Truely amazing.
Last edited by playwrite; 07-14-2015 at 02:04 PM.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#7 at 07-14-2015 07:46 PM by XYMOX_4AD_84 [at joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,073]
---
07-14-2015, 07:46 PM #7
Join Date
Nov 2012
Posts
3,073

Now, let's reinstall the Persian monarchy (maybe kidding, maybe not!).







Post#8 at 07-14-2015 10:32 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
07-14-2015, 10:32 PM #8
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

It's all over except Bibi's temper tantrum.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#9 at 07-15-2015 12:38 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
07-15-2015, 12:38 PM #9
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

I think Mike will like

Pretty interesting assessment -

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talki...-of-this-right

I think the deal with Iran should be interpreted through the lens of the decreasing reliance of the United States on oil from the Middle East. The vast quantities of natural gas and oil in in North America that will permit nearly all of our energy needs to be met at home and allow the significant control of price and supply to be exerted close to home changes importantly our reliance on and control of the world energy market. I think this deal represents the first step of US disentanglement from the machinations of Middle Eastern politics and background control of much of what goes on. Here is my assessment of what is happening, by nation:

United States: We are not as much reliant on middle east oil because of our own stocks and increasing renewables so let’s remove any existential threats from the region so we can be less involved. The major existential threat? Nuclear weapons. With no Iran nukes, there is no regional nuclear arms race. So, we don’t have to police the area nearly as much because we have oil, prices of oil will drop with return of Iranian stocks, and there are no existential threats. We’re just not that into you anymore.

Israel: They are having a hissy fit. Why? As the best and most trusted partner in an area that required the most attention over the last century, their ultimate security has been guaranteed by nukes, their military, their economy, and the iron-clad US backing. If the middle east no longer needs the same attention, then this is one step of the US moving toward a more normal relationship, or less secure than now. I see the reaction of Netanyahu like someone in a relationship trying to get the same love and attention as before, but now even the hissy fits (coming to Congress) aren’t eliciting a big response. They know the “its not you it’s me” is coming.

Gulf states not Saudi Arabia: Not very happy but they stand to make money with the restitution of Iran trade and oil, so they are being bought off to the new environment. Ok, we will take the money if not the hugs.

Saudi Arabia: In a way, they feel the same as Israel. They are acting out by trying to show that they still control the world’s oil by selling it so cheap that they are driving out of business some of the wildcatters here in the US, but they are hurting themselves too by significantly reducing their profits, which is ultimately the way they exert control—buying people off. So, as Israel is becoming histrionic, Saudia Arabia is cutting itself to try and get more attention. (One can make the argument they are fighting in school, with the conflict in Yemen, but the point is the same).

Iran: Ok, we get the message, if we don’t get nukes, we can be a regional power and you won’t bother us as much. Got it.

Syria (Assad): Yea, our backer just won, yea!

Jordan: Damn it, less US, more war, more refugees, more headaches for me.

I see the nuclear deal as the first step in the new world of less reliance on oil. As always, its the oil.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#10 at 07-15-2015 10:56 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
07-15-2015, 10:56 PM #10
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

President hands back pompous reporter's head

Amazing Presidential press conference with a confident Obama ready to take on all critical comers.

The cherry on that sunday ice cream treat was the Presidential take down, schooling, of one of the most pompous let's-make-this-about-me reporters -

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c454448...tt-upside-head

Awesome.

I just wish 2015 Obama could go back in a time machine and guide 2009 Obama.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#11 at 07-16-2015 11:52 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
07-16-2015, 11:52 AM #11
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Does anyone else find it somewhat amusing that those against Obama's Iran deal are the same people who were both okay with Ray-gun selling arms to Iran and Bush2 not enforcing Iranian sanctions on the books at the time because it would hurt oil companies revenues?

They're funny but the false equivalency crowd is hilarious.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#12 at 07-16-2015 10:35 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
07-16-2015, 10:35 PM #12
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
... I just wish 2015 Obama could go back in a time machine and guide 2009 Obama.
Yeah. No kidding. There were many lost opportunities in those should-have-been halcyon days. Oh well.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#13 at 07-17-2015 02:05 AM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
07-17-2015, 02:05 AM #13
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Do you have a take? My first impression is its a good deal on the nuke issue. Gives Iran a pretty free hand in foreign policy, but that does not concern me. It is going to be a big issue for others though.
Well, it's certainly interesting. I guess I'm still in wait and see mode at this point. There's still a possibility that domestic politics could derail ratification on either side, but I don't think that the more likely outcome. The Sunni-Shia conflicts continue unabated, and will for some time. Israel and its agents and fellow-travelers in the US political establishment were predictably shrill, so all in all the continuing 30 Year's War bit in the Middle East will continue to be interesting to watch (from a safe distance, of course).

As for long-term effects, it depends on the outcome of Iran's Awakening and the political skill of the dovish faction within the American elite. By itself, this agreement is not much, but if it becomes the start of a larger rapprochement between the US and Iran I would be very happy, and Obama will have accomplished the first unambiguously impressive thing since his election, IMO. OTOH, the loosening of UN sanctions and arms embargoes also frees up Iran to integrate further into the SCO and the Russo-Chinese orbit.

So, like I said, it will be interesting to see how it shakes out.







Post#14 at 07-21-2015 09:49 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
07-21-2015, 09:49 AM #14
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Amazing Presidential press conference with a confident Obama ready to take on all critical comers.

The cherry on that sunday ice cream treat was the Presidential take down, schooling, of one of the most pompous let's-make-this-about-me reporters -

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c454448...tt-upside-head

Awesome.

I just wish 2015 Obama could go back in a time machine and guide 2009 Obama.
Precisely. If you want a straight answer as a journalist, then do not ask a loaded question.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#15 at 07-22-2015 12:33 PM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
07-22-2015, 12:33 PM #15
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
...
Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
the Presidential take down, schooling, of one of the most pompous let's-make-this-about-me reporters -

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c454448...tt-upside-head...


1) Notice that the Teleprompter-in-Chief never gives the reporter an honest answer, except:


2) ...one wonders how much else there was to bargain away:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/16-reas...n-catastrophe/

16 reasons nuke deal is an Iranian victory and a Western catastrophe...

1. Was the Iranian regime required, as a condition for this deal, to disclose the previous military dimensions of its nuclear program...?


No.

2. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt all uranium enrichment...?

No. The deal specifically legitimizes enrichment under certain eroding limitations.

3. Has the Iranian regime been required to shut down and dismantle its Arak heavy water reactor and plutonium production plant?

No. It will convert, not dismantle the facility, under a highly complex process. Even if it honors this clause, its commitment to “no additional heavy water reactors or accumulation of heavy water in Iran” will expire after 15 years.

4. Has the Iranian regime been required to shut down and dismantle the underground uranium enrichment facility it built secretly at Fordo?

No. (Convert, not dismantle.)

5. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt its ongoing missile development?

No...


Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
...They're funny but the false equivalency crowd is hilarious...
1) Show me conservatives who were crazy about arms for hostages;

2) Reagan also got those hostages held by Hezb Allah back.

How many hostages did the Teleprompter-in-Chief get? Oh, that's right. Playdude thinks avoiding that question is awesome...

3) FWIW, the Iranians used those weapons to fight Ba'athist Iraq. Compare TOW anti-tank missiles to a deal that guarantees that the Iranians will end up with nukes. PW was saying something about false equivalency?

Oh:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-ins...ose-1437521911

The Obama administration assures Americans that the Iran deal grants access within 24 days to undeclared but suspected Iranian nuclear sites. But that’s hardly how a recalcitrant Iran is likely to interpret the deal. A close examination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action released by the Obama administration reveals that its terms permit Iran to hold inspectors at bay for months, likely three or more...

...from the moment the IAEA first tips its hand about what it wants to inspect, likely three or more months may pass...







Post#16 at 07-22-2015 01:07 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-22-2015, 01:07 PM #16
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Does anyone else find it somewhat amusing that those against Obama's Iran deal are the same people who were both okay with Ray-gun selling arms to Iran and Bush2 not enforcing Iranian sanctions on the books at the time because it would hurt oil companies revenues?

They're funny but the false equivalency crowd is hilarious.
I guess the priority for them is just to be consistently wrong on all foreign policy issues.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#17 at 07-22-2015 02:13 PM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
07-22-2015, 02:13 PM #17
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I guess the priority for them is just to be consistently wrong on all foreign policy issues.
-Uh huh. Let's see what Iran looks like in 2025. What does your ASTROLINT have to say about that?







Post#18 at 07-24-2015 08:00 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
07-24-2015, 08:00 PM #18
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
-Uh huh. Let's see what Iran looks like in 2025. What does your ASTROLINT have to say about that?
That is the year for the next likely USA war, but my indications are that war is more likely to happen between the USA and some other folks besides Iran (or with itself, a civil war). When my book comes out you can read more definitive predictions; I'm sure you will want to read it once it's posted freely like parts of my first book.

It appears my predictions on who exactly the enemy might be in 2025 are fairly general, so far. It will be some Asian country or countries. But what happens in 2025 seems likely, according to my writings, to develop out of the war that starts at the start of 2021. Regarding that, I have written this: "The chart shows that the Middle East (probably Syria), Russia, India, China and even Japan may get involved." The charts for Iran did not look especially threatening. It seemed like Russia and some Arab country were the most likely places when I looked at the charts. China and Japan may be part of a coalition on the American side. The USA will not be directly involved until 2025; that seems certain. The US Jupiter war cycle is very reliable.

I would think that if Iran is still dangerous when the provisions in the current deal loosen up, negotiations to extend the ban on their nucs could start again, and sanctions could be imposed again if other nations are also concerned, as they have been. I doubt that bombing their facilities would work. That would spur them to hide and further develop their weapons in defense. Even then, we'd still have to negotiate a deal with them anyway. We aren't going to invade and overthrow their regime.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 07-24-2015 at 08:12 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#19 at 08-04-2015 12:17 PM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
08-04-2015, 12:17 PM #19
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...92a_story.html

President Obama promised that his nuclear deal with Iran would not be “based on trust” but rather “unprecedented verification.” Now it turns out Obama’s verification regime is based on trust after all — trust in two secret side agreements negotiated exclusively between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that apparently no one (including the Obama administration) has seen.

...Obama didn’t even reveal the existence of these secret side deals to Congress when he transmitted the nuclear accord to Capitol Hill. The agreements were uncovered, completely by chance...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...in_127611.html

While Israel and much of official Washington remain focused on the deal President Barack Obama just cut with the ayatollahs that gives them $150 billion and a guaranteed nuclear arsenal within a decade, Obama has already moved on – to Syria...

...Two years ago, in August 2013, the world held its breath awaiting US action in Syria... the Obama administration was forced to acknowledge that Iran’s Syrian puppet Bashar Assad had crossed Obama’s self-declared redline and used chemical weapons against regime opponents, including civilians.

Everything looked ready to go... Obama canceled the operation...

To save face, Obama agreed to a Russian proposal to have international monitors remove Syria’s chemical weapons from the country.

Last summer, the administration proudly announced that the mission had been completed.

UN chemical weapons monitors had removed Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal from the country, they proclaimed. It didn’t matter to either Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry that by that point Assad had resumed chemical assaults with chlorine-based bombs. Chlorine bombs weren’t chemical weapons, the Americans idiotically proclaimed.

Then last week, the lie fell apart... Assad not surrendered his chemical arsenal.

Rather, he hid much of his chemical weaponry from the UN inspectors. He had even managed to retain the capacity to make chemical weapons – like chlorine-based bombs – after agreeing to part with his chemical arsenal.

Assad was able to cheat, because just as the administration’s nuclear deal with the Iranians gives Iran control over which nuclear sites will be open to UN inspectors, and which will be off limits, so the chemical deal gave Assad control over what the inspectors would and would not be allowed to see. So, they saw only what he showed them...

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
...I would think that if Iran is still dangerous when the provisions in the current deal loosen up, negotiations to extend the ban on their nucs could start again, and sanctions could be imposed again if other nations are also concerned, as they have been...
-The whole point is that the French, the Russians, and the UN bureaucrats want the money. It's like stuffing the genie back in the bottle.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
...I doubt that bombing their facilities would work. That would spur them to hide and further develop their weapons in defense... We aren't going to invade and overthrow their regime...
-I figured we'd just let the Israelis handle that, but there's a clause against that. oops.


Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
...I doubt that bombing their facilities would work. That would spur them to hide and further develop their weapons in defense... We aren't going to invade and overthrow their regime...
1) The current situation keeps billions of dollars a month out of Iran's hands, dollars that will be will used for nukes or terrorism (or both).

2) We can bomb their one oil refinery, which eliminates their ability to finace anything.

3) We can bomb or blockade their ports. See above.

4) We can wreck their big military. This would require them to spend money on rebuilding instead of on terrorism or nukes. See point #1.







Post#20 at 08-05-2015 11:38 AM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
08-05-2015, 11:38 AM #20
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

I will say this - and say it without hesitation: The neoconservatives and their counterparts in Israel are clandestinely rooting for Iran to get a nuclear weapon - since in that case they will be able to justify the full-scale war against Iran they have been spoiling for for 36 years.

Similarly, these same people are clandestinely rooting for the Muslim Brotherhood to take power in Egypt - since in that case they will be justified in going to war against them, and re-taking the Sinai. Hasn't "defensible borders" for Israel been their goal all along - and what could be more "defensible" than the Suez Canal as well as the Jordan River? Not only that, but a Swinemunde/Swinoujscie-style beachhead on the west side of the Suez is likely on their agenda too - so that future Arab revanchists cannot sabotage the canal.
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!







Post#21 at 08-05-2015 12:08 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
08-05-2015, 12:08 PM #21
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
-The whole point is that the French, the Russians, and the UN bureaucrats want the money. It's like stuffing the genie back in the bottle.
It was stuffed once before. It might be difficult, but if Iran starts going nuclear again, I see no reason why sanctions can't be re-imposed.
1) The current situation keeps billions of dollars a month out of Iran's hands, dollars that will be will used for nukes or terrorism (or both).
Well, they can't use it for nukes for a while, but they could use it for terror (including boosting Assad). Still, the sanctions were imposed to get Iran to the table on the nuclear issue, not the other issues. We can't put sanctions on Iran just because they have a potentially-stronger economy than that of our Gulf allies.

2) We can bomb their one oil refinery, which eliminates their ability to finance anything.

3) We can bomb or blockade their ports. See above.

4) We can wreck their big military. This would require them to spend money on rebuilding instead of on terrorism or nukes. See point #1.
We can do all that, and they will hunker down and rebuild it all. Since there will be no sanctions except ours, their war economy will roar. Then we'll have to make peace, and we'll be right back where we started.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#22 at 08-13-2015 12:20 PM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
08-13-2015, 12:20 PM #22
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

http://nypost.com/2015/08/09/i-was-w...feels-so-good/

...Schumer issued a detailed statement demolishing supporters’ basic argument — that the deal, while imperfect, was better than no deal. Schumer persuasively showed the deal served Iran more than our side.

He broke his decision into three parts — the nuclear issues during the first 10 years of the deal, the nuclear issues in the following decade and the “non-nuclear” aspects, meaning Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism. For each, he asked whether we would be better off with or without the negotiated terms.

His conclusions were striking. We might be better off with the deal in the first decade, he argues, but almost certainly we would be better off without it in the other two parts.

He found numerous weaknesses in the text, including over inspections and sanctions. After the first decade, he wrote that Iran “can be very close to achieving” a nuke, and that the quest “will be codified in an agreement signed by the United States.”

...The turning point, he said, was the non-nuclear issues, meaning Iran’s lethal ability to use unfrozen accounts of $50 billion to fund its terrorist programs...
Quote Originally Posted by '58 Flat View Post
...The neoconservatives and their counterparts in Israel are clandestinely rooting for Iran to get a nuclear weapon - since in that case they will be able to justify the full-scale war against Iran they have been spoiling for for 36 years.

Similarly, these same people are clandestinely rooting for the Muslim Brotherhood to take power in Egypt ...
-Uh, yeah.

If that's true, then Obama must be their greatest operative...

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
...
Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
It was stuffed once before ...


-Not this time. The Russians, the French, and the UN have too much riding on appeasing the Islamic Republic Iran, just like they had in appeasing the Ba'athists in Iraq. Beisdes, none of them really like the USA or THE JEWS (in big capital letters).

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
...Well, they can't use it for nukes for a while...
...actually, they can. Go back here:

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-ins...ose-1437521911

The Obama administration assures Americans that the Iran deal grants access within 24 days to undeclared but suspected Iranian nuclear sites. But that’s hardly how a recalcitrant Iran is likely to interpret the deal. A close examination of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action released by the Obama administration reveals that its terms permit Iran to hold inspectors at bay for months, likely three or more...

...from the moment the IAEA first tips its hand about what it wants to inspect, likely three or more months may pass...
There are so many delays built into the so-called verification process, it would take months before we knew what was up.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
...We can do all that, and they will hunker down and rebuild it all. Since there will be no sanctions except ours, their war economy will roar...
-On what? Wishful thinking? Their economy is based on oil. That's actually pretty easy to knock out.

The best way to keep the IRI from getting a nuke is deterrence. Back in 2003, the Iranians were so scared of GW Bush, that they stopped their program. They need a little more fear. That's something they don't get from the Appeaser-in-Chief.

Question: When was the last time the IRI kept it's word?

Ultimately, I suspect the Israelis will take care of this, even though the usual suspects will howl when they do it.







Post#23 at 08-18-2015 12:38 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
08-18-2015, 12:38 PM #23
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
http://nypost.com/2015/08/09/i-was-w...feels-so-good/

...Schumer issued a detailed statement demolishing supporters’ basic argument — that the deal, while imperfect, was better than no deal. Schumer persuasively showed the deal served Iran more than our side.
And Fareed Zakaria takes apart Schumer's argument in an open letter -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...297_story.html

Sen. Schumer’s illogical case against the Iran deal

Dear Sen. Schumer,

When you announced your decision to vote against the nuclear agreement with Iran, you explained your reasons in a nearly 1,700-word statement that is thoughtful in substance and civil in tone. And yet, in the end, I found it unconvincing.

I believe that the agreement is flawed. But it is the most intrusive, demanding and comprehensive set of inspections, verification protocols and snapback measures ever negotiated. Compare the detailed 159-page document with the United States' 1994 accord with North Korea, which was a vaguely worded four-page document with few monitoring and enforcement provisions.

You have three sets of objections, which I will get to, but you fail to note what must happen at the outset, before Iran gets widespread sanctions relief.

Iran must destroy 98 percent of its enriched uranium and all of its 5 percent to 20 percent enriched uranium, remove and store more than two-thirds of its centrifuges (including all advanced centrifuges), terminate all enrichment at its Fordow nuclear facility and render inoperable the key components of its Arak (plutonium) reactor. All of these steps must be completed to the satisfaction of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

[Here's the killer -]

It is difficult to imagine that a serious military campaign against Iran would set back its nuclear program as much as this deal does from the start. Fordow, for example, is buried deep in a mountain and would probably survive all but the most intense bombardment.

Your first objections are about the inspections and sanctions. You argue that the inspections are not “anywhere, anytime” and have a 24-day delay that is “troubling.” But all of Iran’s known nuclear facilities are subject to anywhere, anytime monitoring. And for new, suspicious sites, as nuclear expert Jeffrey Lewis points out, “what opponents of the deal have done is add up all the time limits and claim that inspections will occur only after a 24-day pause. This is simply not true. Should the U.S. intelligence community catch the Iranians red-handed, it might be that the Iranians would drag things out as long as possible. But in such a case, the game would be over.”

In that scenario Sen. Schumer, you argue that the sanctions snapback provisions are cumbersome. We must have read different documents. The one I’m looking at contains the first mechanism for the automatic reimposition of sanctions ever created, to my knowledge. And they can be triggered by Washington unilaterally. Peter Feaver, a former aide to President George W. Bush, and sanctions expert Eric Lorber, in expressing skepticism about the deal, admit that “we are hard-pressed to come up with other examples when the U.N. Security Council has voted to disenfranchise future U.N. Security Councils and create legally binding decisions on the say-so of a single member.”

You argue that the United States might prefer to restore sanctions in part and that other countries might not go along with this. But the fact that Washington could unilaterally snap back all U.N. sanctions is surely extraordinary leverage that it could use to get other countries to agree to a partial reimposition of sanctions.

You further say that “after 15 years of relief from sanctions, Iran would be stronger financially and better able to advance a robust nuclear program.” Let’s be clear. Iran is going to get sanctions relief no matter what. The international sanctions against Iran were put in place by other countries solely to get to a nuclear deal. None would go along with extending the sanctions, given that Iran has produced what they all regard as an acceptable agreement.

Foreign Policy magazine reported on an extraordinary meeting this month, when top diplomats from the other five great powers involved in the deal met with senators to urge them to support it. The British and Russian envoys explained that if the deal was rejected, the sanctions would “unravel.”

Your final objection is that Iran would use some of its newly freed-up resources “to redouble its efforts to create even more trouble in the Middle East.” That might be true, but the deal does not stop the United States and its allies from countering these activities, as they do today. The non-nuclear tensions between Iran and the United States predate Tehran’s nuclear program, continue today and will persist in the future. But they would be much worse if Iran had a nuclear threshold capacity.

[and the other killer -]

Your basic conclusion is that “if one thinks Iran will moderate . . . one should approve the agreement. . . . But if one feels that Iranian leaders will not moderate . . . then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.” This is the most puzzling and, frankly, illogical part of your case. If Iran remains a rogue state, all the more reason to put its nuclear program on a leash.

Rejecting this deal would produce an Iran that ramps up its nuclear program, without inspections or constraints, with sanctions unraveling and a United States that is humiliated and isolated in the world.
You cannot want this. I respectfully urge you to reconsider your position.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#24 at 08-18-2015 12:59 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
08-18-2015, 12:59 PM #24
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

And here's the point that Schumer and other fleckless Dems should keep in mind -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-consequences/

If Dems help Republicans kill the Iran deal, they, too, will own the consequences

...If the deal does go down, those Democrats — in addition to Republicans — will also own the consequences that follow. As Brian Beutler recently explained, Republican opposition to the accord is build on a foundation of evasions about what they think we should do instead if and when Iran continues on the course to a nuke, and false promises about how they would secure the “better deal” they claim to envision. But Democrats who end up opposing the deal should also feel pressed to explain why they, too, are not trafficking in the same evasions and false promises.

Obviously it’s possible for lawmakers to sincerely believe that the consequences of killing the agreement won’t be as dire as supporters claim; or that the deal carries such severe long term risks that the near-term consequences of killing it don’t justify supporting it; or that there are plausible alternatives other than war. But Democrats who oppose the deal — as well as Republicans — should feel pressure to justify their opposition with real arguments along these lines, and should expect that whatever arguments they do make will be subjected to intense scrutiny and skepticism...

And as Juan Cole asks -

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/08...it-you-buy-it/

You Break It, You Buy It

Here’s the question that every wavering Democrat and every Republican: “If you choose to reject the deal and go against the rest of the world, how much will you raise taxes and how many kids from your district are you willing to sacrifice to go to war with Iran at the behest of AIPAC, the Likud party, Netanyahu?”

One estimate (on the low side, IMHO) suggests 15,000 American deaths and 90,000 seriously injured. So what’s that, 35 dead per district? How many trillions will the VA need to service all these seriously wounded. That’s a pretty big bill in both blood and gold. So how ’bout it, Senator Schumer? How much are you willing to raise taxes to pay for this? What High School senior class of kids are you willing to look in the eye and say “Sorry, but three dozen of you need to die.”
Those numbers come from an extrapolation of the consequences from the Iraq invasion -

http://www.juancole.com/2015/03/with-iran-numbers.html

War with Iran, by the Numbers

Sen. John McCain and others on the American Right are in favor of dropping those pesky negotiations with Iran and just bombing their nuclear enrichment sites. Doing so, however, would only set them back a year or so, and would certainly put Iran on a war footing with the USA. Those who think such bombing runs would be the end of the story, however, are fooling themselves. Bombing Iraq in 1991 and the no-fly zone had a lot to do with taking the USA down the path to a ground war in 2003. Bombing now will almost certainly lead to a similar ground war.

Iran is 2.5 times more populous than Iraq and much bigger geographically. It is likely that Iran war numbers would be three times those of Iraq, at least.

Casualties from a strike on Bushehr Nuclear Plant: Hundreds of thousands.

Likely US troop deaths: 15,000
Likely US troops lightly injured: 270,000
Likely US troops more seriously wounded: 90,000
Direct cost of war: $5.1 trillion
Cost of caring for wounded troops over lifetime: $9 trillion to $18 trillion

Likely Iranian deaths: 300,000 to 1 million
Likely Iranian injured: 900,0000 to 3 million
Iranian displaced: 12 million (out of 75 million)

Opportunity cost to US: $23 trillion of infrastructure, health care improvements
On this one issue alone, I no longer believe Schumer should represent my family and friends in the Senate let alone be next in-line for leadership; we're pulling our decades-long campaign support of him.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#25 at 08-19-2015 01:20 PM by '58 Flat [at Hardhat From Central Jersey joined Jul 2001 #posts 3,300]
---
08-19-2015, 01:20 PM #25
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Hardhat From Central Jersey
Posts
3,300

Awesome doesn't come anywhere close to covering this:

https://www.facebook.com/JohnH.Bundy...8033062189145/
But maybe if the putative Robin Hoods stopped trying to take from law-abiding citizens and give to criminals, take from men and give to women, take from believers and give to anti-believers, take from citizens and give to "undocumented" immigrants, and take from heterosexuals and give to homosexuals, they might have a lot more success in taking from the rich and giving to everyone else.

Don't blame me - I'm a Baby Buster!
-----------------------------------------