Nuclear agreement reached with Iran

[Brock Beauchamp]

Obama gets another mic drop speech in his Presidency. Unless you're a far right partisan, you have to admit he's been absolutely killing it the past month.

 

I've been really critical of Obama during his Presidency but he's finally coming around and accomplishing many of the things I wanted to see when he was elected in 2008.

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal

[PseudoSABR]

Helpful and thorough website; thanks for the link.   What is the counter-argument here? Appeasement?

[Badsmerf]

I'm excited about this deal. Cooperation by Iran with major powers in the world is a positive step. Hopefully a relationship can be built and some level of stabilization can be brought to the region. I'm an eternal optimist, so this might be just wishful thinking. 

[twinsnorth49]

Great, more oil......

[drjim]

I'm excited about this deal. Cooperation by Iran with major powers in the world is a positive step. Hopefully a relationship can be built and some level of stabilization can be brought to the region. I'm an eternal optimist, so this might be just wishful thinking.

I'm a huge optimist and completely agree, but man is there an easy counter argument to this specific point.

 

I'll expand on the point too. Long term our interests lie much more with Iran than any other country in the region outside of possibly Turkey and maybe Egypt (with Israel not counting).

 

The current leaders are the crazy but Iran clearly has the best infrastructure and an imminent demographic opportunity for a somewhat tolerable political outcome.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Helpful and thorough website; thanks for the link.   What is the counter-argument here? Appeasement?

I couldn't resist visiting Fox News and reading the comments. Apparently, the counter-argument is:

 

- Islam

- Obama

- Anti-American

- Derrrrrrrrrpppp

 

In all seriousness, appeasement does seem to be the rebuttal. I guess it has some merit because the deal is for a limited time but it's a pretty stupid argument to make. Yesterday, we were extremely hostile with Iran. Today, we're slightly less hostile with them and can now start building bridges.

 

As the old adage goes, "US/China relations were not built in a day".

 

Or something like that.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I'm a huge optimist and completely agree, but man is there an easy counter argument to this specific point.

I'll expand on the point too. Long term our interests lie much more with Iran than any other country in the region outside of possibly Turkey and maybe Egypt (with Israel not counting).

The current leaders are the crazy but Iran clearly has the best infrastructure and an imminent demographic opportunity for a somewhat tolerable political outcome.

This this this. People seem to have forgotten that Iran had a long history of education, democracy, and moderation compared to their cohorts in the middle east. If the world is going to "turn the middle east toward the light", it's going to start with Iran. Their recent history has been littered with insanity but if we ease tensions with the country, it's more likely cooler heads will prevail in Tehran and we can start making real progress over there.

[DaveW]

 

 

This this this. People seem to have forgotten that Iran had a long history of education, democracy, and moderation compared to their cohorts in the middle east. If the world is going to "turn the middle east toward the light", it's going to start with Iran. Their recent history has been littered with insanity but if we ease tensions with the country, it's more likely cooler heads will prevail in Tehran and we can start making real progress over there.

Iran is apparently an absolutely amazing country, my girlfriend and her family go back often. The people of Iran are wonderful people for the most part, it's their government that is obviously the issue, but with these relations being open again maybe there is some hope for some eventual "betterment" in the Iranian government in the future.

[TheLeviathan]

As a general rule any expanded diplomatic relations with countries is a good thing, IMO.  Shutting people out and cold wars are generally ineffective.  

 

It's interesting what Iran's motives might be - is it that the sanctions have been THAT effective?  In general, that isn't the case.

[Willihammer]

The sanctions have been devastating from what I understand. Also that is a pretty clear humble brag there Dave (that your girlfriend is Iranian - good god those gals are attractive).

[twinsnorth49]

 

As a general rule any expanded diplomatic relations with countries is a good thing, IMO.  Shutting people out and cold wars are generally ineffective.  

 

It's interesting what Iran's motives might be - is it that the sanctions have been THAT effective?  In general, that isn't the case.

Yes

[TheLeviathan]

That's highly unusual, even moreso since they'd likely be able to strong arm some sanctions being lifted once the nuke program was operational.  Interesting.

[Craig Arko]

So it's still 3 minutes to midnight.

 

http://thebulletin.org/doomsday-dashboard

 

But, maybe we'll survive long enough to go back...

[twinsnorth49]

 

Iran is apparently an absolutely amazing country, my girlfriend and her family go back often. The people of Iran are wonderful people for the most part, it's their government that is obviously the issue, but with these relations being open again maybe there is some hope for some eventual "betterment" in the Iranian government in the future.

Betterment of the government is going to have to come from a revolution of the people. Constitutionally the government is pretty much impotent in the face of the Supreme leader and I don't see an imminent change coming in that regard, especially one influenced by the West.

 

Will be interesting to see how this effects things in Syria.

[Craig Arko]

Will be interesting to see how this effects things in Syria.

Will perhaps be even more interesting to see how this affects things in Israel.

[drjim]

Betterment of the government is going to have to come from a revolution of the people. Constitutionally the government is pretty much impotent in the face of the Supreme leader and I don't see an imminent change coming in that regard, especially one influenced by the West.

 

Will be interesting to see how this effects things in Syria.

In Syria I have a hard time choosing between Assad, Al Qaeda and ISIS.

 

But of course it's the countless civilians caught in the middle who bear the brunt.

[twinsnorth49]

 

Will perhaps be even more interesting to see how this affects things in Israel.

Would have to think Israel will be encouraged by this. The situation in Syria is one of the most destabilizing in the region, with Iran being such a strong ally of theirs it will be curious to see how things might be influenced. Israel will be interested in that development, as I'm sure will Lebanon.

[PseudoSABR]

With the Hawks in perpetual power in Israel, I doubt stability is what that government seeks.  They stay in power based on the belief that there is an imminent Muslim threat to which only hawkish strength can protect.   Any diplomatic gains or long-lasting stability in the region undercuts the current regime in Israel, I think.

[twinsnorth49]

 

In Syria I have a hard time choosing between Assad, Al Qaeda and ISIS.

But of course it's the countless civilians caught in the middle who bear the brunt.

Choosing?

[TheLeviathan]

 

With the Hawks in perpetual power in Israel, I doubt stability is what that government seeks.  They stay in power based on the belief that there is an imminent Muslim threat to which only hawkish strength can protect.   Any diplomatic gains or long-lasting stability in the region undercuts the current regime in Israel, I think.

 

It's certainly not a totally irrational fear.  It makes for poor diplomatic efforts where they should be better attempted and with more good faith, but not a totally misguided belief.

[twinsnorth49]

 

With the Hawks in perpetual power in Israel, I doubt stability is what that government seeks.  They stay in power based on the belief that there is an imminent Muslim threat to which only hawkish strength can protect.   Any diplomatic gains or long-lasting stability in the region undercuts the current regime in Israel, I think.

I'm no defender of Netanyahu  but what leftist parties still exist in Israel that have a credible view on security? The left dominated Israeli politics for years but also had their fair share of Hawks, Ehud Barak being the most recent. Security has always been the central theme in Israeli politics, it's certainly not based on a misguided belief.

 

How they deal with threats on security and how they work towards long term solutions on them is another story. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

I'm no defender of Netanyahu  but what leftist parties still exist in Israel that have a credible view on security? The left dominated Israeli politics for years but also had their fair share of Hawks, Ehud Barak being the most recent. Security has always been the central theme in Israeli politics, it's certainly not based on a misguided belief.

 

How they deal with threats on security and how they work towards long term solutions on them is another story. 

I wasn't endorsing a leftist politics in Israel, much less one unconcerned about security.   I was responding to the notion that Israel would be encouraged by the results of the deal--which I don't think they are.  

 

I honestly don't know if there's a sustainable Israel that doesn't concede a significant Palestinian State--the premise of Israel has generational antagonism.

 

I want to be a fly on the wall of what ever room, people carved up the map after WWII.  It will be a long time for humanity to correct the arrogance that took place in that room.

[TheLeviathan]

I think the opposite may be true. The Israelis just saw a coalition lead by their strongest ally make peace with one of their most vocal security threats. It might make them dig in even deeper to the idea of handling their own defense.

 

In addition, there is a naive belief around the world that Israel over sells their security risks and Israel is quite aware of it. This may deepen that divide between perceptions as well.

[drjim]

Opinion of deal tracks almost perfectly with opinion of Obama. Shocking. #notshocked

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/opinions-about-the-iran-deal-are-more-about-obama-than-iran/

[drjim]

There are certainly questions/concerns with this deal, but it does seem most knowledgable opposition comes from sources that want war against Iran.

[twinsnorth49]

Israel pretty much united in their opposition to the deal, not just the Hawks. Comes down to simply not trusting anything Iran says or does really, which I have to say i understand.

 

North Korea also agreed to similar conditions years ago and we all know how that turned out.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

North Korea also agreed to similar conditions years ago and we all know how that turned out.

There's definitely a risk that Iran could go all North Korea on us but I think the chance of that happening is pretty low. NK is its own entity with tactics taken to such an extreme that they're a unique case (I highly recommend some of the NK documentaries on Netflix... the country is absolutely INSANE).

 

Iran, unlike Korea, has a populace with a real voice. Things have become pretty bad in Iran and once things get a little better, I think the population will resent any attempt to renege on the agreement and go back to the "bad ol' days".

 

There's a risk with any agreement but I think Iran is a lot more China than North Korea. They have a vested interest in quelling hostilities for a myriad of reasons, whereas NK gets its power from not only maintaining hostilities, but escalating them whenever possible. NK thrives on its extreme paranoia, which allows it to continue ramping up concentration camps, anti-western propaganda, and isolation. Iran doesn't have a desire to be isolated because they don't have a China next door to keep them afloat. Without China, NK collapses 30 years ago.

 

Which brings me to the point "WTF China".

[drjim]

 

Which brings me to the point "WTF China".

 

Probably only delaying the inevitable, but China doesn't want to deal with the fallout of a NK collapse (refugees, etc) and they are terrified (rightly) about what NK leadership might do on the way out.

[DaveW]

 

 

 

It's interesting what Iran's motives might be - is it that the sanctions have been THAT effective?  In general, that isn't the case.

Not to pile on, but from my understanding is that the sanctions have been extremely effective, and the Iranian people are THRILLED to have some of them lifted.

 

Hopefully this leads to cheaper Saffron prices in the US

[twinsnorth49]

 

There's definitely a risk that Iran could go all North Korea on us but I think the chance of that happening is pretty low. NK is its own entity with tactics taken to such an extreme that they're a unique case (I highly recommend some of the NK documentaries on Netflix... the country is absolutely INSANE).

 

Iran, unlike Korea, has a populace with a real voice. Things have become pretty bad in Iran and once things get a little better, I think the population will resent any attempt to renege on the agreement and go back to the "bad ol' days".

 

There's a risk with any agreement but I think Iran is a lot more China than North Korea. They have a vested interest in quelling hostilities for a myriad of reasons, whereas NK gets its power from not only maintaining hostilities, but escalating them whenever possible. NK thrives on its extreme paranoia, which allows it to continue ramping up concentration camps, anti-western propaganda, and isolation. Iran doesn't have a desire to be isolated because they don't have a China next door to keep them afloat. Without China, NK collapses 30 years ago.

 

Which brings me to the point "WTF China".

Well I don't think either country is going to be launching a nuclear attack and I agree they have more to gain from an agreement than NK , but I think the belief that pushback from the populace in the face of any reneging is of any concern to the government is wrong.

 

Russia's support of this is curious as economically they seemingly have much to lose.