In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 04 2015 05:47 oneofthem wrote: btw for republicans to pull this is pretty over the line. netanyahu made specific allegations against the UNITED STATES's negotiations with a foreign state, a process that is supposed to be confidential and relies on sensitive intelligence. they put obama in a position of having to defend the u.s. policy against a foreign politician's propaganda and we can't even release intelligence to prove the case.
Your last sentence kind of sums up the gist of why this move might be necessary. Obama making deals that he won't justify because he "can't" release the information he's using to support his argument sounds shady at best. This isn't supposed to be a secret deal, it is something the U.S. has been trying to get for DECADES. Netanyahu is simply ensuring America's biggest regional ally isn't cut out of the process, as it appears they have been if their leader feels he needs to go to the Congressional floor to say so.
Or perhaps the foreign leader was grandstanding. Oh wait. He WAS!
It's more than grandstanding. It's quite obvious he's trying to sabotage the negotiations with Iran. This is thematic of the Obama presidency, but we have to ask if it's better to have a bad deal than no deal at all. I don't think there's any doubt Netanyahu is going for "no deal". But like I said, the US has been angling for a deal to slow Iran's nuclear production for decades now. "No deal" has been the status quo and everyone knows it hasn't been working.
the actual content of the deal is not the only thing to consider, there's also iran's attitude towards negotiation and dialogue. they were basically engaged in all out war against the u.s. and israel from the 80's and this recent softening is a bit of an opportunity to make some inroads towards normalizing relations.
they are also responsive to pretty crippling sanctions and also the presence of isis. don't think anyone is thinking that iran is now totally trustworthy but this is really a situation that must be understood in the context of their previous behavior.
On March 04 2015 07:23 xDaunt wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why Moltke thinks that "American Hegemony" in Europe has not been a good thing for the Europeans since the end of WW2. Europeans are more or less free to do whatever they want while benefiting from the protection of American military might with very few strings attached.
Not to say I agree with things Moltke says (and I'm not really planning on sorting through his points to even figure out what he's trying to say), but American military might isn't actually much "benefit" for the major European nations...because post WW2 all of the major military powers in the world have been extremely gun-shy of each other. Mostly because all of them have nuclear armaments, and no nation actually wants to start a major conflict against an enemy that can actually fight back.
Every war since WW2 has basically been a war-by-proxy, or a military power invading some lesser power.
nuclear deterrence works to some extent but the threat of a soviet land invasion was very much real and required measures short of total annihilation to contain. it wasn't as easy as putting some icbm's around europe, the u.s. had conventional troops there too. there's also the intellgence and counter-intelligence stuff and the propaganda front
Well, there's a good reason why they called it the Cold War.
Yeah, the threat and the tension was very much real (so real that a slightly itchier trigger-finger on either side could've caused an all out nuclear war), but when you get down to the Cold War was mostly posturing from both sides, because each were convinced the other was out to destroy them, and they had to make themselves look as big as possible.
A bit of a simplification, but the point is that the USSR was never genuinely pushing for a European land-war, compared to establishing allied nations in Asia or taking territory in the middle east.
On March 04 2015 07:23 xDaunt wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why Moltke thinks that "American Hegemony" in Europe has not been a good thing for the Europeans since the end of WW2. Europeans are more or less free to do whatever they want while benefiting from the protection of American military might with very few strings attached.
Not to say I agree with things Moltke says (and I'm not really planning on sorting through his points to even figure out what he's trying to say), but American military might isn't actually much "benefit" for the major European nations...because post WW2 all of the major military powers in the world have been extremely gun-shy of each other. Mostly because all of them have nuclear armaments, and no nation actually wants to start a major conflict against an enemy that can actually fight back.
Every war since WW2 has basically been a war-by-proxy, or a military power invading some lesser power.
nuclear deterrence works to some extent but the threat of a soviet land invasion was very much real and required measures short of total annihilation to contain. it wasn't as easy as putting some icbm's around europe, the u.s. had conventional troops there too. there's also the intellgence and counter-intelligence stuff and the propaganda front
Well, there's a good reason why they called it the Cold War.
Yeah, the threat and the tension was very much real (so real that a slightly itchier trigger-finger on either side could've caused an all out nuclear war), but when you get down to the Cold War was mostly posturing from both sides, because each were convinced the other was out to destroy them, and they had to make themselves look as big as possible.
A bit of a simplification, but the point is that the USSR was never genuinely pushing for a European land-war, compared to establishing allied nations in Asia or taking territory in the middle east.
who knows what the soviets would have done without u.s. military and nukes in the vicinity. europe was devastated and britain can't do anything alone.
BTW, this WaPo op-ed explains some of the details of the deal, from a former special assistant to President Obama.
Obama is clearly prepared to accept a deal that would limit the Iranian nuclear program for perhaps the next 15 years and in a way that ensures the Iranians would be a year away from being able to produce weapons-grade uranium. Iran, however, would not be required to dismantle any nuclear facilities or infrastructure — and, after the agreement expires, would be permitted to have an industrial-size nuclear program and be treated like any other party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
On March 04 2015 02:28 BisuDagger wrote: Was anyone else inspired by Netanyahu's speech? I thought he delivered a clear, concise argument that left nothing ambiguous. This is one of the moments in American history where party alignment truly has to be set aside and congress needs to utilize the brilliant minds they all have in making a decision on how to go forward with Iran. That's all American citizens could ask for.
I really dug the speech. I was already worried about Obama's negotiations with Iran, particularly given his extensive experience in foreign policy blunders. Netanyahu showed we're blindly waking into the next one. I'll give it a second view after work.
Also nice to see heavy bipartisan applause. Some still value allies above political vitriol. Pelosi's antics added a nice splash of humor as well.
I wonder what makes you think that this would be a blunder when even the Mossad is not convinced that Iran is actually working on a nuclear weapon (Source). If anything I would compare Netanyahu's actions to the invasion of Iraq on the base of weapons that did not exist.
All the intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq pointed to Saddam's possession of WMD's. I imagine you supported the Iraq war for the same reasons you support Obama's current negotiations with Iran today.
Seriously, guys, if you're tempted to follow the secondary reporting on the speech only, go watch the speech first.
I really don't remember that. In fact, I remember there being numerous instances of the information being released to the public being pretty much shit on on all other non-American news stations.
Iirc, Powell's speech to the UN trying to convince other nations to invade with the U.S. even relied on some information obtained of the the graduate thesis of a random student on the internet.
The public/governments of most other nations were extremely skeptical of the actual threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and whether he even possessed wmds AND the desire to use them against American interests. And they were correct on both fronts.
Which is good. It kinda turned out to be pretty much the biggest clusterfuck since the Vietnam war. I'm really glad my country didn't get involved in it....
their current facility is pretty crude, which was why netanyahu's old picture of a 80% completed bomb or soemthing was ridiculous. it takes a technological leap or vast scaling to jump from 20% enrichment to 95%, and there's no way the u.s. or israel will let that stand. there's the general worry of developing weapon capable processes wtihout going the final step of making the bomb, but there's a world of difference between japan's capacities and iran's, for example. iran requires some pretty critical threshold technological leap in either uranium or plutonium to get to that stage, and the timescale given for their development of a bomb is reflective of that. half a year to a year is a long time actually, and it carries the signature events like building a plutonium processing plant, or new process and technology to gain advanced centrifuge fabrication capacity. latter requirng importing of sensitive technology. in contrast, japan is like a week away from a nuke if not shorter and they have very advanced processing of weapon grade plutonium(stored both in japan itself and at european allies, so everyone knows they can make the bomb and actually support that capacity), world class uranium centrifuges and so on. iran would need to make some very clear telling moves to signal that they are building a bomb, at which time we can do something about it.
iran also realizes that there's no way they can realistically get a bomb going. they'll retain a nuclear program for whatever reason, maybe to build a bomb in the future. but it's just not a very imminent threat.
the u.s. negotiation position is also crafted with knowledge of intelligence capability in iran. if we have stuxnet and later variants running, there is assurance about no surprises. this is actually one of those instances where spying and understanding the threat can promote peace and negotiation.
On March 04 2015 08:45 oneofthem wrote: their current facilities is pretty crude, which was why netanyahu's old picture of a 80% completed bomb or soemthing was ridiculous. it takes a technological leap or vast scaling to jump from 20% enrichment to 95%, and there's no way the u.s. or israel will let that stand. there's the general worry of developing weapon capable processes wtihout going the final step of making the bomb, but there's a world of difference between japan's capacities and iran's, for example. iran requires some pretty critical threshold technological leap in either uranium or plutonium to get to that stage, and the timescale given for their development of a bomb is reflective of that. half a year to a year is a long time actually, and it carries the signature events like building a plutonium processing plant, or new process and technology to gain advanced centrifuge fabrication capacity. latter requirng importing of sensitive technology. in contrast, japan is like a week away from a nuke if not shorter and they have very advanced fabrication of enriched uranium and so on. iran would need to make some very clear telling moves to signal that they are building a bomb, at which time we can do something about it.
iran also realizes that there's no way they can realistically get a bomb going. they'll retain a nuclear program for whatever reason, maybe to build a bomb in the future. but it's just not a very imminent threat.
the u.s. negotiation position is also crafted with knowledge of intelligence capability in iran. if we have stuxnet and later variants running, there is assurance about no surprises. this is actually one of those instances where spying and understanding the threat can promote peace and negotiation.
I'm not sure about this bolded part. I mean, the US and Israel are already trying to not let it stand with sanctions and that's the whole purpose of these negotiations. Netanyahu gave the speech precisely because he thinks the US is letting it stand.
I would guess Israel looks at other situations. The US isn't supposed to be letting it stand that North Korea is actively trying to produce nuclear weapons either, but the US is not able to stop them because the solutions are politically unpalatable. As for the reliability of US intelligence, that went out the window with India and Pakistan's unexpected nuclear bomb tests. They had pretty crude programs that didn't enable them to build atomic bombs either...up until the point where they successfully tested them. It's pretty complacent to act like the US has Iran under control. That's not to say Netanyahu is correct, but it's also not correct to act like the US has the situation in hand.
EDIT: Japan is an interesting parallel and I think important here. The US does tolerate advanced nuclear technology in Japan and the fact that they have proven they can produce weapons grade plutonium (and "found" a large batch last year, which they have since transferred to the US). On the other hand, Japan does not routinely violate the non-proliferation treaty, shut out inspectors, or threaten other countries with war. They also don't do things like test large-scale explosives or long-range missiles (although the Iranians might dispute that since Japan has an advanced space program).
well the u.s. policy and even the iranian policy has consistently excluded actually letting iran having a bomb. the facilities iran have are allowed under the nonproliferation treaty, if they submit to inspections and so on.
israel already preemptively bombed nuclear facilities in the past and they'll surely do so wtih iran if they think iran is breaching a deal to not have nukes. don't think iran has anyone to call to back them up when that happens. the NK situation was different because china is protecting NK from such attacks on its facilities.
also should note that iran actually isn't the side with the leverage here. they are desperate with the economic impact of the sanctions. if they make some moves to breach the terms of the potential deal the sanctions could always come back on and whatever they are building be scrutinized/removed. netanyahu clearly doesn't want normalized relations with iran
Even on second viewing, I'm surprised at the Democrats joining Republicans in standing ovations as Netanyahu hits point after point about Iranian aggression, terrorism, and repeated calls for the destruction of Israel. Maybe 50-60 Democrats boycotting, but a packed house nonetheless. It is heartening to see so many Democrats cheering Netanyahu even as their president signals appeasement.
Not as covered, but I think prescient, was his comments on ISIS and Iran. It's just about dividing the fat jihad pie. Will it be their Islamic state or Iran's Islamic republic.
Who the hell blows up a mock US aircraft carrier while they're having negotiations about their nuclear program? Iran does. These negotiations are paving the way towards Iran getting the bomb. Again, I urge readers to watch the movie and hear their same arguments frankly addressed and slapped down. Iran keeps its nuclear program, and gets even negotiated restrictions removed in a decade. The easiest explanation is that Obama is relatively prepared for a nuclear-armed Iran.
On March 04 2015 08:55 oneofthem wrote: well the u.s. policy and even the iranian policy has consistently excluded actually letting iran having a bomb. the facilities iran have are allowed under the nonproliferation treaty, if they submit to inspections and so on.
israel already preemptively bombed nuclear facilities in the past and they'll surely do so wtih iran if they think iran is breaching a deal to not have nukes. don't think iran has anyone to call to back them up when that happens. the NK situation was different because china is protecting NK from such attacks on its facilities.
Surely that doesn't reassure the Israelis, since the US clearly has no stomach for any new wars in the Middle East. Hell, it's quite clear the US is reluctant to fight ISIS, even though they've brutally killed American citizens on top of their growing list of atrocities.
Then you have the rumors that Obama has gone so far as to threaten to shoot down Israeli planes if they try a pre-emptive strike. The source on this is very shaky (an unnamed Israeli minister in a Kuwaiti newspaper), but I think it's plausible because Obama certainly would not want to be dragged into an ugly, long-term war by Israel.
On March 04 2015 08:55 oneofthem wrote: well the u.s. policy and even the iranian policy has consistently excluded actually letting iran having a bomb. the facilities iran have are allowed under the nonproliferation treaty, if they submit to inspections and so on.
israel already preemptively bombed nuclear facilities in the past and they'll surely do so wtih iran if they think iran is breaching a deal to not have nukes. don't think iran has anyone to call to back them up when that happens. the NK situation was different because china is protecting NK from such attacks on its facilities.
Surely that doesn't reassure the Israelis, since the US clearly has no stomach for any new wars in the Middle East. Hell, it's quite clear the US is reluctant to fight ISIS, even though they've brutally killed American citizens on top of their growing list of atrocities.
Then you have the rumors that Obama has gone so far as to threaten to shoot down Israeli planes if they try a pre-emptive strike. The source on this is very shaky (an unnamed Israeli minister in a Kuwaiti newspaper), but I think it's plausible because Obama certainly would not want to be dragged into an ugly, long-term war by Israel.
maybe the u.s. and israel have different standards for what is enough to be a strikeable breach. the u.s. could draw the line somewhere that israel isn't comfortable with.
Even on second viewing, I'm surprised at the Democrats joining Republicans in standing ovations as Netanyahu hits point after point about Iranian aggression, terrorism, and repeated calls for the destruction of Israel. Maybe 50-60 Democrats boycotting, but a packed house nonetheless. It is heartening to see so many Democrats cheering Netanyahu even as their president signals appeasement.
Not as covered, but I think prescient, was his comments on ISIS and Iran. It's just about dividing the fat jihad pie. Will it be their Islamic state or Iran's Islamic republic.
Who the hell blows up a mock US aircraft carrier while they're having negotiations about their nuclear program? Iran does. These negotiations are paving the way towards Iran getting the bomb. Again, I urge readers to watch the movie and hear their same arguments frankly addressed and slapped down. Iran keeps its nuclear program, and gets even negotiated restrictions removed in a decade. The easiest explanation is that Obama is relatively prepared for a nuclear-armed Iran.
Again... its a PM doing some political showboating and grand standing while his own intelligence agencies are telling him that Iran isn't preparing to build a nuke.
that mock exercise is pretty reassuring about what they are actually about tho. it's obviously not a show of actual force, but a staged play for their domestic audience. they are facing a lot of pressure not to appear soft or their whole justificatory narrative for the state won't stand. they are also faced with internal pressure to relief the economic sanctions. i wouldn't read too much into the paper carrier stuff, it's comical but also shows that they are pretty desperate.
Even on second viewing, I'm surprised at the Democrats joining Republicans in standing ovations as Netanyahu hits point after point about Iranian aggression, terrorism, and repeated calls for the destruction of Israel. Maybe 50-60 Democrats boycotting, but a packed house nonetheless. It is heartening to see so many Democrats cheering Netanyahu even as their president signals appeasement.
Not as covered, but I think prescient, was his comments on ISIS and Iran. It's just about dividing the fat jihad pie. Will it be their Islamic state or Iran's Islamic republic.
Who the hell blows up a mock US aircraft carrier while they're having negotiations about their nuclear program? Iran does. These negotiations are paving the way towards Iran getting the bomb. Again, I urge readers to watch the movie and hear their same arguments frankly addressed and slapped down. Iran keeps its nuclear program, and gets even negotiated restrictions removed in a decade. The easiest explanation is that Obama is relatively prepared for a nuclear-armed Iran.
The question is how does no deal make anything better? Or make Iran any less likely to get a nuke?
the actual impact of the nuclear program on security is pretty insignifcant compared to the harm that iran could potentially cause if it mobilizes its resources to sponsor various groups to raise hell in the region. this deal is probably done with some understanding of...some sort of dialogue on the ISIL situation.
On March 04 2015 09:03 Nyxisto wrote: Just a question, is there any reason to enrich Uranium to 20% or higher if you don't want to build a bomb?
I think the point for them is to have break-out capacity. The cost of actually having nukes is high and they run the risk of getting found out if they go for it covertly, which might legitimize Israeli and US action, so being on a 2-4 year timetable (this is just my guess) to build a nuke is a reasonable alternative for them. It offers a minimal assurance that if the world starts going to shit for whatever reason they can at least try to arm themselves in time. Plenty of countries have break-out capacities (though obviously Japan or Germany would probably be able to build a nuke in one quarter or less of the time it would take Brazil).
On March 04 2015 07:23 xDaunt wrote: I'm still trying to figure out why Moltke thinks that "American Hegemony" in Europe has not been a good thing for the Europeans since the end of WW2. Europeans are more or less free to do whatever they want while benefiting from the protection of American military might with very few strings attached.
Not to say I agree with things Moltke says (and I'm not really planning on sorting through his points to even figure out what he's trying to say), but American military might isn't actually much "benefit" for the major European nations...because post WW2 all of the major military powers in the world have been extremely gun-shy of each other. Mostly because all of them have nuclear armaments, and no nation actually wants to start a major conflict against an enemy that can actually fight back.
Every war since WW2 has basically been a war-by-proxy, or a military power invading some lesser power.
I want to point out that this is a very interesting point, because the thinking in Western countries in the 1950s was that Stalin wanted another war, what with the Allied countries being so unstable during reconstruction and seemingly reversals everywhere. The French cemented their poor fighting reputation at Dienbienphu, for instance. Nobody was even willing to do anything about China.
But subsequent Soviet records show that the Russians were deeply terrified of another war too. They knew they could not afford to fight another Stalingrad, particularly as the Americans would not make the same mistakes that Germany did. The way an unwilling America inflicted frightful casualties on North Korean and Chinese soldiers made it all the more terrifying of what America could do in a war it wanted to fight, a war where they would feel justified breaking every bone in Russia's body, win or lose. Also, they understood the trend of modern war better than anyone. There were 250,000 Russian casualties in the Russo-Japanese war in 18 months of fighting. 2.5 million casualties in World War I in three years of fighting. 26 million casualties in World War II in four years of fighting. Do the math and you have to cower in fear at the costs America might impose in the next war.
So I think this is the kind of point that only makes sense in retrospect, where we know there wasn't a major war between the US and USSR. But it ignores the feelings of the time and how scared people felt that they might be called to make monstrous attritional sacrifices yet again. People in the Cold War didn't fully appreciate how scared Russia was too.
EPT
