Iran Nuclear Deal

[Grasshopper]

Strikes me as a good thing; mainly because I tend toward the dove, but also because I think Iran can make a major contribution in defeating ISIS (so the repproachment should serve another end too).

Clivex/Ice - how do you feel about it, given your stated-positions over the years?

Do you cautiously view this as a broadly positive move, or do you see the deal as wafer-thin, and something that will lead to proliferation?

FWIW, I think the news coverage of this story has been genuinely shabby.

The 5+1 purportedly hold the view that ithe deal will prevent Iran from developing a warhead, whereas the Rupublican leadership (and some Democrats, to be fair) reckon it will lead to Iran getting a nuke in the near-term.

They can't both be right, yet both sides are allowed to trot-out their position, without ever being challenged as to why they hold it.

In the absence of any detailed analysis, it's hard to know who to believe. It's very disappointing.

 

[clivex]

The ultimate and pretty well stated aim is to get a weapon. So they will. There was a similar deal with North korea and guess what. They have weapons

Once they have it there will be an arms race. and it could get worse. It's not impossible to see an out of control Iranian leadership (last one was close enough) to see it as being gods will to use it against a people they belueve should be wiped out.

 

[icebreaker]

I'm dithering; cannot come to a to an Aye or Nay for it. I'm sitting on the fence, and that annoys me as I usually have an opinion on everything!

On the one hand, I would by default be against anything that might be a threat to the state of Israel. Unfortunately, Iran's backing for Hezbollah is a paradigm of this.
However, I am happy to see Iran enter back into the fold of international co-operation and trade partnership. I would opine that Iran is perhaps the most progressive of the middle-east theocracies -- showing tolerance for other religions within the country, an enlightened attitude towards women, and a reasonably liberal style of living allowed to all citizens. 17 synagogues in Tehran alone, 50,00 Jews living happily and in peace, and parliamentary seats reserved in the Iranian parliament for Christians, Jews and communists. Iran is also a choke on Sunni expansionism in the region and further afield; and like you say, Grass, they are also the West's best and most effective ally in the battle against Islamic State.

I regret that Netanyahu did not do himself any favours with his demented ranting against the deal -- forgetting to mention that his own country has dozens and maybe hundreds of nuclear weapons itself, and that Israel is the one country that refuses to sign the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty.

Overall I guess I'm prepared to cautiously welcome the new deal and await to see how it pans out over the coming years.

 

[clivex]

If a there was a terrorist organisation that had deeply racist views towards the British or Irish say and had stated their intent, would you be happy for the state that unequivocally backs them financially and with weapons, to have access to nuclear arms?

Hezbollah might be a lot less virulent than they have been but it's easy to forsee a limited nuclear strike against Israel in the future. It's gods will etc etc. and of course Iran and its apologists will claim to know nothing about it

iran can fck off and die as a state as far as I am concerned. The enemies enemy argument for attacking Isis is the same one that led to sadam being backed. Forget it. It's vacuous and frankly they should be concerned enough about Isis without any prompting from the rest of the world

if they want to reach out for better relations then that's up to them. On our terms or you can sink into poverty

Im against the deal. Obama is a lightweight.

 

[clivex]

Compromise and diplomacy is over rated. Useless chamberlain style hand wringing

it's same with Greece. Pull the plug fck them off out of the euro and take the hit. Let them crash into decrepitude and refuse any humanitarian aid. Close borders

You elect a bunch of arrogant preening left wing thickos who couldn't negotiate their way out of a paper bag then you take on on the chin . It's our money you lazy fcking bubbles. Go starve

 

[Colin Phillips]

You're a very kind man, Mr. Clive.

 

[marbler]

I would have liked Obama to have dealt with Bashir Assad, and for me he made a mistake there, but he delayed and everything has now spiralled into something else.....

Other than that, he's seems a good egg so to speak, I like his presentation and values and have grown to like him over the years.

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on this deal, and hope it works out, especially for his successor Hillary Clinton, who I think is the right person to take over the reigns.

In terms of Isreali-Saudi relations, you cannot be all things to all people all the time, and there doesn't seem to be a 'third way' in these policy area's.

 

[Warbler]

He also omits to tell you that a lot of the damage done in Greece was at the hands of Liberal / Conservative coalition (New Democracy) who went on a wild spending spree and decided that the uber rich needn't pay tax. PASOK were just as bad. Both aprties submitted falsified accounts, PASOK to join the Euro and New Democracy started the spending. Syriza had to pick up the pieces.

I'm never quite sure where responsbility lies here, the people who recklessly spend or the people who recklessly lend? These are all free marketeers of course who frequently tells us that they live or die by the sword, so should they not carry some of the can for their poor lending decisions? As things stand, 90% of the Greek bail out money goes on paying lenders, about 10% ends up with the Greeks

None of which has anything to do with Iran.. urm... might get round to that later but there's a number of things we need clarity on first. My biggest concern is that so much western policy is being formed in a cold war mentality and it's leading to horrendous mistakes in judgement

 

[Warbler]

I would have liked Obama to have dealt with Bashir Assad, and for me he made a mistake there, but he delayed and everything has now spiralled into something else.....

I'm afraid that's just nonesense Marb

Do you seriosuly think for one second democracy would have broken out in Syria with the removal of Assad (like it has in Libya you mean?). Were it not for Assad and the Syrian army (which hasn't run away like the much vaunted American trained, and American equipped Iraqis) ISIS would already have over run Lebanon and be at the gates of the Israel.

I've explained this before. The radicals are badly out numbered by conservatives in something like a ratio of 10 to 1. The radicals tend to be middle class, middle aged academics and professionals. They'd get battered by the conservatives in a fist fight! Indeed, that's what happened. The Syrian army and Hezbollah on the only people on the ground in Syria capable of arresting ISIS

If you really wanted ISIS dealt with, the best way of doing it would have been to allow Assad the use of chemcial weapons and then once he'd stopped ISIS in his tracks you could go on your moral crusade. It's certainly happened plenty of times in the past where you feign indignation at a moral outrage for public consumption, but privately you're relieved

 

[marbler]

Do you seriosuly think for one second democracy would have broken out in Syria with the removal of Assad (like it has in Libya you mean?). Were it not for Assad and the Syrian army (which hasn't run away like the much vaunted American trained, and American equipped Iraqis) ISIS would already have over run Lebanon and be at the gates of the Israel.

Good. Well then let Isreal get involved, do you have some sort of a problem with that?

It's a simple equation, get rid of Assad and make the problem one teeny bit more straightforward and forthcoming, or keep him in, and keep the war chess game going until the end of civilisation.

Unlike some I don't think ISIS are any worse than Assad.
They are all scum, and all doing bad things, but Assad is the official government of a country, so therefore the sword should have fallen on him by now.

You and others have said how ISIS are the worst group in the middle east....the one's we have to 'deal with', do you not think that's a moral position of yours in itself?

Whether action against Assad in 2013 would have been proven a strategic error two years later, with the benefit of hindsight, doesn't really bother me on a personal level much.

This dictator has presided and took part in one of the worst civilian loss of life since the Holocaust.

This isn't morals, this is about teaching the **** a lesson and saying enough is enough.

What stopped it of course both pracital terms and in the vote in parliament was the legacy of the Iraq war of 2003.

We used the almighty card of war then, and because we... (Tony, George, Clivex and their disciples), were proved wrong, we're now handcuffed from doing anything anywhere.

No wonder Putin is licking his lips and eyeballing Ukraine...

 

[clivex]

He also omits to tell you that a lot of the damage done in Greece was at the hands of Liberal / Conservative coalition (New Democracy) who went on a wild spending spree and decided that the uber rich needn't pay tax. PASOK were just as bad. Both aprties submitted falsified accounts, PASOK to join the Euro and New Democracy started the spending. Syriza had to pick up the pieces.

I'm never quite sure where responsbility lies here, the people who recklessly spend or the people who recklessly lend? These are all free marketeers of course who frequently tells us that they live or die by the sword, so should they not carry some of the can for their poor lending decisions? As things stand, 90% of the Greek bail out money goes on paying lenders, about 10% ends up with the Greeks

None of which has anything to do with Iran.. urm... might get round to that later but there's a number of things we need clarity on first. My biggest concern is that so much western policy is being formed in a cold war mentality and it's leading to horrendous mistakes in judgement

A bit clueless and not exactly economically savvy. Of course the previous was to blame but you are where you are and chimpanzees could have handled the situation better than those teenage Marxists. When they took over the economy was growing ffs



live and die by the sword? That's what I am suggesting. As for the boneheaded lefties, they've ended up with a harsher deal than was available before.

 

[clivex]

Should keep thread to Iran. Drop Greece . It is for another day. Isis too. Done to death

i do not trust Iran and their intentions. Having said that, this will be monitored closely and the feeling is that North korea will not be replicated if handled correctly. But Israel has to live with that shadow

whether Iran will ever properly engage with the west I do not know.

 

[Grasshopper]

Thanks, Ice.

Clive, you never disappoint me.

 

[Grasshopper]

The ultimate and pretty well stated aim is to get a weapon. So they will. There was a similar deal with North korea and guess what. They have weapons

Once they have it there will be an arms race. and it could get worse. It's not impossible to see an out of control Iranian leadership (last one was close enough) to see it as being gods will to use it against a people they belueve should be wiped out.

Clive, if it's Iran's stated intention to "wipe out" Jews, then how come 50,000 of them are free to practice their religion without oppression in that country?

 

[Warbler]

Unlike some I don't think ISIS are any worse than Assad.

ISIS are significantly worse than Assad. You're just wrong.

Had you replaced Assad in 2013 you'd have opened up a power vacuum. If you don't believe me, look at what happened in Libya. Every power vacuum that opens in these countries sees the conservatives advance at the cost to the radicals

 

[Warbler]

This dictator has presided and took part in one of the worst civilian loss of life since the Holocaust.

There's been dozens of regimes since who have directly and indirectly killed many more people than Assad. He's not remotely on the same scale as some others.

As you allude to elsewhere in the post, if you want a general rule of thumb, one of the best predictors I know of is to ask Clive what he thinks and then advocate for the opposite. 90% of the time you'll be proven right

One area where he is correct here though (albeit there were better examples available) is the danger of encouraging proxies to fight your battles for you, and the application of the laws of unintended consequence

 

[clivex]

Clive, if it's Iran's stated intention to "wipe out" Jews, then how come 50,000 of them are free to practice their religion without oppression in that country?

irrelevant although I shiuld have stated israel. Hezbollah is their proxy with a certain degree of own agenda. They get the material and then what? could Iran stop them?

its the future. The last president was taunting the Jews endlessly with his holocaust denial. You know full well that Islam is based on hatred and it's not a big leap to foresee a Iranian leader who will press the button

 

[Euronymous]

We need the Mongol Empire back. How much ISIS arse would they kick.

 

[clivex]

Strikes me as a good thing; mainly because I tend toward the dove, but also because I think Iran can make a major contribution in defeating ISIS (so the repproachment should serve another end too).

Clivex/Ice - how do you feel about it, given your stated-positions over the years?

Do you cautiously view this as a broadly positive move, or do you see the deal as wafer-thin, and something that will lead to proliferation?

FWIW, I think the news coverage of this story has been genuinely shabby.

The 5+1 purportedly hold the view that ithe deal will prevent Iran from developing a warhead, whereas the Rupublican leadership (and some Democrats, to be fair) reckon it will lead to Iran getting a nuke in the near-term.

They can't both be right, yet both sides are allowed to trot-out their position, without ever being challenged as to why they hold it.

In the absence of any detailed analysis, it's hard to know who to believe. It's very disappointing.

the trouble is that no one really knows unless they are close to the negotiations. Its opinions based on past performance and guesswork about the future. Does Iran really want to engage or do they want to be a nuclear power in the region for the sake of it and/or to generate weapons? It is a little surprising that a state with a crashed economy and abundant fuel resources really feels the need to invest in nuclear power isn't it?

 

[Grasshopper]

The way I see it, Iran either wants to engage in a meaningful detente......or it's a deceit, to ensure future Armageddon in the Middle East.

The theocrats in Tehran are not the kind of rabid, Apocalyptic scabs that IS represent, and I suspect they have absolutely no desire to march their country into that kind of end-game.

From what I've seen, those empowered to broker a deal on Iran's behalf, are educated and considerate, and inclined to drive-hard to secure the best deal they can get - in other words, no different to the diplomats and politicians of the 5+1.

I think they're pragmatists who realise they'll achieve more (on all manner of fronts) by adopting a more conciliatory approach.

 

[clivex]

Maybe this leadership but would you say that about the chimpanzee that was their last president?

 

[Warbler]

A bomb is for life!

I'm a little bit confused about your double standard here though Clive. Whereas I believe you're correct to try and take a wider view regarding the undercurrents within the country and its capacity to re-elect a dangerous individual, I'm having trouble reconciling this with the way you constantly say that we should forget George Bush, or Sarkozy because they're history (or William Hague because he's left office) yet are quite happy to invoke the spectre of someone like Armoured Dinner Jacket, even though he's been replaced.

Let's pretend for one second that you're a complete ignoramus from the planet democracy though, and have been beamed down to the middle east to assess Iran and Saudia Arabia (and it's satellites) regarding their prospects. Which would you conclude was the more advanced?

Well one of them has a parliament of sorts with a prime minister, and people vote across a wider social spectrum than many in the region. It also allows women to go to university. It has more of a groundswell of grass roots that you would probably describe as democratic in their drive (albeit this could be fragile and the product of populist external agitation) in which case it would be dangerous to rely on. It does however have an overall spiritual leader with a direct to God that probably stops short of being a divine right. In concept and structure it might be similar to pre civil war England circa 1630's.

So why are we not leaning more positively towards Iran than we do Saudia Arabia, which frankly is a lot more backward in it's path to democracy being a dynastic monarchy (closer to Norman Britan circa 1080's)

I suspect the answer lies in the legacy of the cold war again and the straight jacket that our body politik have fitted themselves into

Shia = bad = Iran = Soveit
Sunni = good = Saudi = sells America oil and buys Britsh weapons

That's changed, but I'd happily conceed that it can change back too, and perhaps something that observes the precautionary principle would be a sensibel response. If it transpires that the thaw in relations with Iran is due to some temporary mutually expedient such as an alliance against Sunni ISIS, then I think that's a very dangerous route to travel. Iran could play their part without needing to resort to WMD, and in any event, there are better qualified, trained, and equipped countries in the world to do so as well if we weren't so hell bent on alienating them

I suppose we ought to trust that the US has good intelligence about the Iranian programme having flooded their IT systems with spyware over the last decade, but once the Iranians know they're being watched they can of course respond with disingenuity and open up other avenues for communication that don't sit on fibre optic cables

I do wonder however why on earth the Iranians would trust the west? We too change government's and alter our positions on some incredibly flimsy basis. The disposition of Gaddafi is the most obvious example which really had it's roots not in any sound strategic appraisal of our own security, but rather Nicholas Sarkozy's desperate attempts to win an election, and David Cameron being hopelessly marrooned in the 1980's

Libya was the only diplomatic success story of the war on terror. Gadaffi had complied with demands to abolish his WMD programme. He'd agreed to act as a border post and stop floods of African migrants reaching Europe. He'd joined the war on terror and even allowed America to render suspects through Libya and permit 'enhanced interrogation' techniques to be used by the CIA. How was he rewarded? What sort of message of reassurance does this send to Iran?

America is just as likely to elect some dangerous neo Con in the future and given their penchant for ripping up agreements I wouldn't trust them one iota if I were Iran. For their part too, they're just as likely to swing towards conservatism if they open up. All the other countries tend to, and the pattern across the arab spring was for Islamic brotherhood type of parties to win

None of this anticipates the reaction of Saudia Arabia and Israel of course. I'd be more worried about the former to some extent

 

[clivex]

Saudi Arabia is not trying to get a nuclear weapon

this is too long winded to read and all I'm seeing is Cameron gadafi Cameron gadafi

 

[Warbler]

Do you really think that Saudi Arabia (or country X for that matter) won't make any attempt to match Iran Clive? A country let us not forget that Wikileaks revealed had been imploring America to invade.

You need to see that there are consequences to every decision, and that means thinking 2 or 3 steps ahead and not restricting yourself to your usual knee jerk reactionary positions. It's little wonder you keep sleep walking into so many poor judgements. The sad thing is that you don't appear to have learnt anything from the days when you were leaping up and down and frothing at the mouth like a rabid dog in your support of George W Bush and his phantom WMD invasion of Iraq.

Agh... we aren't allowed to discuss that though are we, because it's in the past. Same way Armoured Dinner Jacket is, yet his ghost lives on it seems when it's convenient to invoke recent history

 

[clivex]

Poor judgements? Who the fck do you think you are? you keep repeating this stuff dont you. As a 9/11 truther (where did that garbage ever get to? ) and someone who thinks we need civilian armed militias on the streets to contain the imminent isis takeover of the uk, I think thats a bit of a laugh isnt it?

Competely stupid point too. Saudi is not looking for nuclear weapons. Full stop. It might do if iran does but who does that signify as the aggressive party? Errr lets think about it shall we..

And the west is criticised for "cold war thinking" what could be more cold war than iran getting nuclear arms that it doesnt need

but frankly i now see, too late, why grass started the thread and doesnt engage with you. If its not words in mouth its generalised stupid remarks which have nothing to do with the thread.

so carry on ... but im too busy frankly