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.
Whatever satisfaction the administration may have felt, attention quickly turned to the next phase. Officials reiterated their belief that Congress has no formal role in approving a final deal and vowed to head off any congressional attempt to vote on it, especially before it is due to be completed and signed three months from now.
It's in the same "huh?" vein as Airbnb being allowed to operate in Cuba but not New York City.
Well that part makes a ton of sense, isn't Congress just supposed to "yea" or "nea" the final thing?
Yes, they are supposed to. The theory behind the process is that negotiating with a foreign power is very difficult and its better done by a single appointed person, rather than congress as a whole. The congress has the ability to override bad treaties if they arise to protect the American people, but they are sort of expected to be a little out of the loop with the negotiations. Other democratic countries do the exact same thing. Blowing up the deal due to short term politics and over an election cycle will go very poorly if the Republicans plan to do that. Regardless of what “excuse” they put forth for doing so.
And they will get input and the ability to assist with the draft of the treaty in some way, but its won’t be in the very public, I can score political points with my base sense. But every member of congress is not going to get to weigh in on the issue, that’s not how the process works.
Besides, it isn't really correct to refer to Congress here; the Senate is the body tasked with providing the executive with "advice and consent" insofar as treaties are concerned. What exactly "advice and consent" means depends on the case precedent one looks to, but in my opinion, the bulk of it points to a very strong level of deference paid towards the executive in foreign affairs.
Whatever satisfaction the administration may have felt, attention quickly turned to the next phase. Officials reiterated their belief that Congress has no formal role in approving a final deal and vowed to head off any congressional attempt to vote on it, especially before it is due to be completed and signed three months from now.
It's in the same "huh?" vein as Airbnb being allowed to operate in Cuba but not New York City.
Well that part makes a ton of sense, isn't Congress just supposed to "yea" or "nea" the final thing?
Yes, they are supposed to. The theory behind the process is that negotiating with a foreign power is very difficult and its better done by a single appointed person, rather than congress as a whole. The congress has the ability to override bad treaties if they arise to protect the American people, but they are sort of expected to be a little out of the loop with the negotiations. Other democratic countries do the exact same thing. Blowing up the deal due to short term politics and over an election cycle will go very poorly if the Republicans plan to do that. Regardless of what “excuse” they put forth for doing so.
And they will get input and the ability to assist with the draft of the treaty in some way, but its won’t be in the very public, I can score political points with my base sense. But every member of congress is not going to get to weigh in on the issue, that’s not how the process works.
You know, it would help to read the whole sentence. The administration doesn't want Congress to put a veto-proof bill saying any deal with Iran needs approval by Congress and it is critical that this not happen during negotiations because it suddenly adds Congress as a player to the negotiations and they are likely to reject it with the inevitable modifications and concessions. Obama is already laying the spin on thick by casting the deal as "Iran stops enrichment, Allies drop sanctions" as the first impression, when the actual details of the bill might be different and far less favorable.
It is less important if Congress scraps the deal after the fact because Obama has already made it clear that he would lead the catcalls as the world blames the GOP. It would mar his legacy but badly damage Republicans in their 2016 narrative.
Whatever satisfaction the administration may have felt, attention quickly turned to the next phase. Officials reiterated their belief that Congress has no formal role in approving a final deal and vowed to head off any congressional attempt to vote on it, especially before it is due to be completed and signed three months from now.
It's in the same "huh?" vein as Airbnb being allowed to operate in Cuba but not New York City.
Well that part makes a ton of sense, isn't Congress just supposed to "yea" or "nea" the final thing?
Yes, they are supposed to. The theory behind the process is that negotiating with a foreign power is very difficult and its better done by a single appointed person, rather than congress as a whole. The congress has the ability to override bad treaties if they arise to protect the American people, but they are sort of expected to be a little out of the loop with the negotiations. Other democratic countries do the exact same thing. Blowing up the deal due to short term politics and over an election cycle will go very poorly if the Republicans plan to do that. Regardless of what “excuse” they put forth for doing so.
And they will get input and the ability to assist with the draft of the treaty in some way, but its won’t be in the very public, I can score political points with my base sense. But every member of congress is not going to get to weigh in on the issue, that’s not how the process works.
You know, it would help to read the whole sentence. The administration doesn't want Congress to put a veto-proof bill saying any deal with Iran needs approval by Congress and it is critical that this not happen during negotiations because it suddenly adds Congress as a player to the negotiations and they are likely to reject it with the inevitable modifications and concessions. Obama is already laying the spin on thick by casting the deal as "Iran stops enrichment, Allies drop sanctions" as the first impression, when the actual details of the bill might be different and far less favorable.
It is less important if Congress scraps the deal after the fact because Obama has already made it clear that he would lead the catcalls as the world blames the GOP. It would mar his legacy but badly damage Republicans in their 2016 narrative.
Well since the GOP controls both the house and senate, if they blow up the deal it will be their fault. I think Obama would likely be blaming the right people and if other countries agree, well that's the GOP's problem. And if congress put together that bill, it would be idiocy and be struck down by the Robert's court as a blatant attempt to bypass the process set out by the Constitution. And of course Obama would spin it as such, because that is exactly what it is.
Its stupid to fault the man for having a good plan.
iran concessions under the terms made public so far are pretty substantial and far reaching. republicans are only objecting because it makes obama look good.
(Reuters) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said on Thursday it was unlikely to approve new or expanded uses of certain pesticides while it evaluates the risks they may pose to honey bees.
The so-called neonicotinoid pesticides are routinely used in agriculture and applied to plants and trees in gardens and parks. But their widespread use has come under scrutiny in recent years after a drop in the number of honey bees and other pollinating insects, which play key roles in food production.
The decline is attributed to factors including pesticide and herbicide use, habitat loss and disease, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The EPA notice came the day after Oregon's largest city suspended the use of the pesticides on its property to protect honey bees.
The unanimous vote on Wednesday by the Portland City Commission came despite protests from farmers, nursery owners and others who claimed the insecticide was crucial in combating pests that destroy crops and other plants. Portland is among at least eight municipalities that have banned the chemicals.
The EPA is conducting an assessment of the six types of neonicotinoids and their impact on honey bees, with its evaluation of four expected by 2018 and the remaining two a year later.
In the interim, the agency said in a statement that its move stemmed from the agency's "ongoing effort to protect pollinators."
I haven't been keeping track too much, but the objections being raised now are the same things that were concerns before anything was made public. It's not like detractors invented a new thing to be angry about. In that light, I don't think this has as much to do with Obama as people think. If anything, the fact that this is supposed to be so important for Obama's "legacy" suggests it's at least as political for him as it is for the Republicans.
When you have people that were, and always have, opposed negotiating with Iran in the first place, this becomes pretty clear.
But this is the usual leftist rhetoric. Assume disagreement is political only.
Edit: of course I'm not dismissing politics as a factor entirely. But that's par for the course, and it's one factor among many.
The Obama administration is aiming to train 75,000 workers — many of them military veterans — for the solar power industry.
The goal is a 50 percent increase from President Obama’s last commitment on solar training, announced last May.
Obama will announce the goal along with efforts to achieve it Friday at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, the White House said.
A major part of the initiative will be programs to attract outgoing military personnel and veterans into solar training, including community college programs.
The Energy Department’s Solar Ready Vets program is a key component, the White House said in a fact sheet. "Programs like DOE’s Solar Ready Vets achieve many important goals: creating jobs, bolstering energy security, cutting carbon pollution and combating climate change," Dan Utech, a top energy and climate change adviser to Obama, told reporters Friday.
The training initiative will be launched in coordination with the Defense Department at 10 military bases.
Three bases have already started a pilot program for solar training, and the Utah base where Obama will speak will become the forth, Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, the deputy secretary of Energy, told reporters. Six more bases will be announced in the coming months.
"This Solar Ready Vets program aims to prepare participating military personnel for careers at solar photovoltaic system installers, sales representatives, system inspectors and other solar related occupations once they transition from military service," Sherwood-Randall said.
The training classes last four to six weeks and would take place in the final months of a service member's time at the base.
The Veterans Affairs Department will also contribute to the goal by encouraging states to approve solar workforce training for GI Bill benefits.
On April 04 2015 02:52 Introvert wrote: But this is the usual leftist rhetoric. Assume disagreement is political only.
Those danged leftists! *shakes fists*
In all seriousness, commenting on negotiations still in progress is rather inane, and largely why I refused to comment on the negotiations; Congress can freely choose not to ratify the treaty once all the details are sorted out, and trying to undermine them when nothing was agreed upon quite yet, as Netanyahu did, is a big no-no.
The primary issue with continued criticism is that the terms/details thus far released/agreed upon are actually very good for the US. They fulfill most of our demands for Iran to demonstrate a peaceful intent for their nuclear program, consistent with their rhetoric, and actually go quite a long way to defuse the situation and potentially "normalize" Iran. Would we prefer no centrifuges and no nuclear program? Certainly: but the Iranians would never agree to it, and they simply don't have to come to the table. The whole premise of "negotiation" is compromise; no one's happy, but everyone can live with it. I'm actually mildly surprised with how much we got, actually.
Moreover, the problem with those who say we should never negotiate with Iran is that they present little alternative (and why they are generally not taken seriously in foreign policy circles). There is only three options that we can realistically take while removing the option of negotiation from the table.
1) Maintain the status quo of sanctions (or impose more sanctions), which is in general has been generally ineffective and unsatisfactory for everyone involved. Sanctions are not enough to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if they so choose (indeed, if they were intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, they would acquire them, sanctions or no sanctions), and are thus not good for the US (or Israel). Iran remains crippled by sanctions, is more likely to remain hostile to the West (and thus, paradoxically, more likely to pursue nuclear weapons given threat analysis). Moreover, the point of sanctions is to bring Iran to the table so...
2) A military response, with options ranging from airstrikes of nuclear facilities to full on regime change. This has many, many problems, and why no serious analyst or policymaker on the hill is actually advancing as a legitimate option. The costs (diplomatic, economic, military) of such an effort are simply too great to justify given Iran's regional capabilities, our present security concerns throughout the Mid East, and necessary commitments throughout the world (and the blatant advancing of Israeli interests over US interests), and the actual benefits of such an action are, for the US, negligible. Iran does not pose an existential threat to the US (due to power projection capabilities), and nuclear weapons are, predominantly, a defensive deterrence method.
3) Accept and prepare for a nuclear Iran. The people opposing any negotiation with Iran is absolutely adamant against this (while I remain unconvinced that this would be a catastrophe, see + Show Spoiler +
, as Iran is generally not suicidal and a rational state entity), so this is obviously off the table.
On April 04 2015 02:52 Introvert wrote: But this is the usual leftist rhetoric. Assume disagreement is political only.
Those danged leftists! *shakes fists*
In all seriousness, commenting on negotiations still in progress is rather inane, and largely why I refused to comment on the negotiations; Congress can freely choose not to ratify the treaty once all the details are sorted out, and trying to undermine them when nothing was agreed upon quite yet, as Netanyahu did, is a big no-no.
The primary issue with continued criticism is that the terms/details thus far released/agreed upon are actually very good for the US. They fulfill most of our demands for Iran to demonstrate a peaceful intent for their nuclear program, consistent with their rhetoric, and actually go quite a long way to defuse the situation and potentially "normalize" Iran. Would we prefer no centrifuges and no nuclear program? Certainly: but the Iranians would never agree to it, and they simply don't have to come to the table. The whole premise of "negotiation" is compromise; no one's happy, but everyone can live with it. I'm actually mildly surprised with how much we got, actually.
Moreover, the problem with those who say we should never negotiate with Iran is that they present little alternative. There is only two that we can realistically take while removing the option of negotiation from the table.
1) Maintain the status quo of sanctions (or impose more sanctions), which is in general has been generally ineffective and unsatisfactory for everyone involved. Sanctions are not enough to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if they so choose (indeed, if they were intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, they would acquire them, sanctions or no sanctions), and are thus not good for the US (or Israel). Iran remains crippled by sanctions, is more likely to remain hostile to the West (and thus, paradoxically, more likely to pursue nuclear weapons given threat analysis).
2) A military response, with options ranging from airstrikes of nuclear facilities to full on regime change. This has many, many problems, and why no serious analyst or policymaker on the hill is actually advancing as a legitimate option. The costs (diplomatic, economic, military) of such an effort are simply too great to justify given Iran's regional capabilities, our present security concerns throughout the Mid East, and necessary commitments throughout the world (and the blatant advancing of Israeli interests over US interests), and the actual benefits of such an action are, for the US, negligible. Iran does not pose an existential threat to the US (due to power projection capabilities), and nuclear weapons are, predominantly, a defensive deterrence method.
3) Accept and prepare for a nuclear Iran. The people opposing any negotiation with Iran is absolutely adamant against this (while I remain unconvinced that this would be a catastrophe, see + Show Spoiler +
I wouldn't comment too much either, but it's clear the administration wanted it talked about, so whatever.
What I like about your post was that you are making arguments, which is what people do. Assume your opponents have a rational objection instead of saying "deal is good, and anyone who disagrees just hates Obama." That goes hand in hand with the leftists shaking their fists.
I hate to ignore the long post you wrote, but it wasn't my goal to get into specifics. This isn't my area of expertise, so I like to do more reading than talking on the subject.
My major concern would be making sure that all these safeguards and threats are actually meaningful, i.e., Iran can't go back on them in 3 years without a consequence. It's too bad really, Iran is a culturally rich country with good people, from what I know. The fact they have the government they do is unfortunate.
On April 04 2015 02:52 Introvert wrote: But this is the usual leftist rhetoric. Assume disagreement is political only.
Those danged leftists! *shakes fists*
In all seriousness, commenting on negotiations still in progress is rather inane, and largely why I refused to comment on the negotiations; Congress can freely choose not to ratify the treaty once all the details are sorted out, and trying to undermine them when nothing was agreed upon quite yet, as Netanyahu did, is a big no-no.
The primary issue with continued criticism is that the terms/details thus far released/agreed upon are actually very good for the US. They fulfill most of our demands for Iran to demonstrate a peaceful intent for their nuclear program, consistent with their rhetoric, and actually go quite a long way to defuse the situation and potentially "normalize" Iran. Would we prefer no centrifuges and no nuclear program? Certainly: but the Iranians would never agree to it, and they simply don't have to come to the table. The whole premise of "negotiation" is compromise; no one's happy, but everyone can live with it. I'm actually mildly surprised with how much we got, actually.
Moreover, the problem with those who say we should never negotiate with Iran is that they present little alternative (and why they are generally not taken seriously in foreign policy circles). There is only three options that we can realistically take while removing the option of negotiation from the table.
1) Maintain the status quo of sanctions (or impose more sanctions), which is in general has been generally ineffective and unsatisfactory for everyone involved. Sanctions are not enough to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if they so choose (indeed, if they were intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, they would acquire them, sanctions or no sanctions), and are thus not good for the US (or Israel). Iran remains crippled by sanctions, is more likely to remain hostile to the West (and thus, paradoxically, more likely to pursue nuclear weapons given threat analysis). Moreover, the point of sanctions is to bring Iran to the table so...
2) A military response, with options ranging from airstrikes of nuclear facilities to full on regime change. This has many, many problems, and why no serious analyst or policymaker on the hill is actually advancing as a legitimate option. The costs (diplomatic, economic, military) of such an effort are simply too great to justify given Iran's regional capabilities, our present security concerns throughout the Mid East, and necessary commitments throughout the world (and the blatant advancing of Israeli interests over US interests), and the actual benefits of such an action are, for the US, negligible. Iran does not pose an existential threat to the US (due to power projection capabilities), and nuclear weapons are, predominantly, a defensive deterrence method.
3) Accept and prepare for a nuclear Iran. The people opposing any negotiation with Iran is absolutely adamant against this (while I remain unconvinced that this would be a catastrophe, see + Show Spoiler +
, as Iran is generally not suicidal and a rational state entity), so this is obviously off the table.
4) ???
another issue with option 1 is we can't keep the status quo without the support of the other nations involved. There are issues with the far right parts of congress not accepting a deal that the other sanctioning nations would see as acceptable. If the deal is good enough for everyone but the far right of congress, then refusing the deal and keeping the sanctions simply isn't an option.
Which means that when we strip away the rhetoric, option 2 is the only one left for those on the right who are already decrying any deal.
On April 04 2015 02:52 Introvert wrote: But this is the usual leftist rhetoric. Assume disagreement is political only.
Those danged leftists! *shakes fists*
In all seriousness, commenting on negotiations still in progress is rather inane, and largely why I refused to comment on the negotiations; Congress can freely choose not to ratify the treaty once all the details are sorted out, and trying to undermine them when nothing was agreed upon quite yet, as Netanyahu did, is a big no-no.
The primary issue with continued criticism is that the terms/details thus far released/agreed upon are actually very good for the US. They fulfill most of our demands for Iran to demonstrate a peaceful intent for their nuclear program, consistent with their rhetoric, and actually go quite a long way to defuse the situation and potentially "normalize" Iran. Would we prefer no centrifuges and no nuclear program? Certainly: but the Iranians would never agree to it, and they simply don't have to come to the table. The whole premise of "negotiation" is compromise; no one's happy, but everyone can live with it. I'm actually mildly surprised with how much we got, actually.
Moreover, the problem with those who say we should never negotiate with Iran is that they present little alternative. There is only two that we can realistically take while removing the option of negotiation from the table.
1) Maintain the status quo of sanctions (or impose more sanctions), which is in general has been generally ineffective and unsatisfactory for everyone involved. Sanctions are not enough to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if they so choose (indeed, if they were intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, they would acquire them, sanctions or no sanctions), and are thus not good for the US (or Israel). Iran remains crippled by sanctions, is more likely to remain hostile to the West (and thus, paradoxically, more likely to pursue nuclear weapons given threat analysis).
2) A military response, with options ranging from airstrikes of nuclear facilities to full on regime change. This has many, many problems, and why no serious analyst or policymaker on the hill is actually advancing as a legitimate option. The costs (diplomatic, economic, military) of such an effort are simply too great to justify given Iran's regional capabilities, our present security concerns throughout the Mid East, and necessary commitments throughout the world (and the blatant advancing of Israeli interests over US interests), and the actual benefits of such an action are, for the US, negligible. Iran does not pose an existential threat to the US (due to power projection capabilities), and nuclear weapons are, predominantly, a defensive deterrence method.
3) Accept and prepare for a nuclear Iran. The people opposing any negotiation with Iran is absolutely adamant against this (while I remain unconvinced that this would be a catastrophe, see + Show Spoiler +
I wouldn't comment too much either, but it's clear the administration wanted it talked about, so whatever.
What I like about your post was that you are making arguments, which is what people do. Assume your opponents have a rational objection instead of saying "deal is good, and anyone who disagrees just hates Obama." That goes hand in hand with the leftists shaking their fists.
I hate to ignore the long post you wrote, but it wasn't my goal to get into specifics. This isn't my area of expertise, so I like to do more reading than talking on the subject.
My major concern would be making sure that all these safeguards and threats are actually meaningful, i.e., Iran can't go back on them in 3 years without a consequence. It's too bad really, Iran is a culturally rich country with good people, from what I know. The fact they have the government they do is unfortunate.
I feel like its more political this time only because the arguments that specifically Netanyahu was making when talking about the hypothetical deal weeks ago was that it did not actually stop them from developing a nuclear weapon. However when he raised his objections today that was nowhere to be heard and it was him basicaly saying "well why didnt you stop them from getting involved in the region" which is nothing like what I heard him saying before.
I agree its also not my field of expertise but my early reaction is that given the way the objections raised to it suddenly became issues that had never been raised before and seem more like arguing for the sake of arguing and the fact that a bunch of people who are experts are saying that under the terms of the agreement Iran could not have a nuclear weapon I am hesitantly optimistic assuming congress does not ruin it like they ruin everything.
Idk from what I've read most objections are the same, or they are at least logical extensions of previous concerns. But there could be new things. I'm not up to date on Israel's exact position either.
I was mainly trying to point out there is an argument to be had, not a therapeutic bashing session.
On April 04 2015 02:52 Introvert wrote: But this is the usual leftist rhetoric. Assume disagreement is political only.
Those danged leftists! *shakes fists*
In all seriousness, commenting on negotiations still in progress is rather inane, and largely why I refused to comment on the negotiations; Congress can freely choose not to ratify the treaty once all the details are sorted out, and trying to undermine them when nothing was agreed upon quite yet, as Netanyahu did, is a big no-no.
The primary issue with continued criticism is that the terms/details thus far released/agreed upon are actually very good for the US. They fulfill most of our demands for Iran to demonstrate a peaceful intent for their nuclear program, consistent with their rhetoric, and actually go quite a long way to defuse the situation and potentially "normalize" Iran. Would we prefer no centrifuges and no nuclear program? Certainly: but the Iranians would never agree to it, and they simply don't have to come to the table. The whole premise of "negotiation" is compromise; no one's happy, but everyone can live with it. I'm actually mildly surprised with how much we got, actually.
Moreover, the problem with those who say we should never negotiate with Iran is that they present little alternative. There is only two that we can realistically take while removing the option of negotiation from the table.
1) Maintain the status quo of sanctions (or impose more sanctions), which is in general has been generally ineffective and unsatisfactory for everyone involved. Sanctions are not enough to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if they so choose (indeed, if they were intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, they would acquire them, sanctions or no sanctions), and are thus not good for the US (or Israel). Iran remains crippled by sanctions, is more likely to remain hostile to the West (and thus, paradoxically, more likely to pursue nuclear weapons given threat analysis).
2) A military response, with options ranging from airstrikes of nuclear facilities to full on regime change. This has many, many problems, and why no serious analyst or policymaker on the hill is actually advancing as a legitimate option. The costs (diplomatic, economic, military) of such an effort are simply too great to justify given Iran's regional capabilities, our present security concerns throughout the Mid East, and necessary commitments throughout the world (and the blatant advancing of Israeli interests over US interests), and the actual benefits of such an action are, for the US, negligible. Iran does not pose an existential threat to the US (due to power projection capabilities), and nuclear weapons are, predominantly, a defensive deterrence method.
3) Accept and prepare for a nuclear Iran. The people opposing any negotiation with Iran is absolutely adamant against this (while I remain unconvinced that this would be a catastrophe, see + Show Spoiler +
I wouldn't comment too much either, but it's clear the administration wanted it talked about, so whatever.
What I like about your post was that you are making arguments, which is what people do. Assume your opponents have a rational objection instead of saying "deal is good, and anyone who disagrees just hates Obama." That goes hand in hand with the leftists shaking their fists.
I hate to ignore the long post you wrote, but it wasn't my goal to get into specifics. This isn't my area of expertise, so I like to do more reading than talking on the subject.
My major concern would be making sure that all these safeguards and threats are actually meaningful, i.e., Iran can't go back on them in 3 years without a consequence. It's too bad really, Iran is a culturally rich country with good people, from what I know. The fact they have the government they do is unfortunate.
when people were complaining about some on the right. They weren't complaining about the valid points; they were complaining about the people (and there are a fair number I've seen in general, not talking about here specifically) who raised INvalid points; points that are just plain indisputably factually false, or complaining without any actual alternative plan.
On April 04 2015 02:52 Introvert wrote: But this is the usual leftist rhetoric. Assume disagreement is political only.
Those danged leftists! *shakes fists*
In all seriousness, commenting on negotiations still in progress is rather inane, and largely why I refused to comment on the negotiations; Congress can freely choose not to ratify the treaty once all the details are sorted out, and trying to undermine them when nothing was agreed upon quite yet, as Netanyahu did, is a big no-no.
The primary issue with continued criticism is that the terms/details thus far released/agreed upon are actually very good for the US. They fulfill most of our demands for Iran to demonstrate a peaceful intent for their nuclear program, consistent with their rhetoric, and actually go quite a long way to defuse the situation and potentially "normalize" Iran. Would we prefer no centrifuges and no nuclear program? Certainly: but the Iranians would never agree to it, and they simply don't have to come to the table. The whole premise of "negotiation" is compromise; no one's happy, but everyone can live with it. I'm actually mildly surprised with how much we got, actually.
Moreover, the problem with those who say we should never negotiate with Iran is that they present little alternative. There is only two that we can realistically take while removing the option of negotiation from the table.
1) Maintain the status quo of sanctions (or impose more sanctions), which is in general has been generally ineffective and unsatisfactory for everyone involved. Sanctions are not enough to deter Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if they so choose (indeed, if they were intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, they would acquire them, sanctions or no sanctions), and are thus not good for the US (or Israel). Iran remains crippled by sanctions, is more likely to remain hostile to the West (and thus, paradoxically, more likely to pursue nuclear weapons given threat analysis).
2) A military response, with options ranging from airstrikes of nuclear facilities to full on regime change. This has many, many problems, and why no serious analyst or policymaker on the hill is actually advancing as a legitimate option. The costs (diplomatic, economic, military) of such an effort are simply too great to justify given Iran's regional capabilities, our present security concerns throughout the Mid East, and necessary commitments throughout the world (and the blatant advancing of Israeli interests over US interests), and the actual benefits of such an action are, for the US, negligible. Iran does not pose an existential threat to the US (due to power projection capabilities), and nuclear weapons are, predominantly, a defensive deterrence method.
3) Accept and prepare for a nuclear Iran. The people opposing any negotiation with Iran is absolutely adamant against this (while I remain unconvinced that this would be a catastrophe, see + Show Spoiler +
I wouldn't comment too much either, but it's clear the administration wanted it talked about, so whatever.
What I like about your post was that you are making arguments, which is what people do. Assume your opponents have a rational objection instead of saying "deal is good, and anyone who disagrees just hates Obama." That goes hand in hand with the leftists shaking their fists.
The overwhelming consensus in foreign policy regarding Iran is that we have to negotiate, especially now when they've got a reformist president and a general drift towards rapprochement.
There are a few hardliners that would prefer to see no negotiation with Iran, but they're, in US foreign policy circles, basically the lunatic fringe. I'm not even exaggerating here.
I hate to ignore the long post you wrote, but it wasn't my goal to get into specifics. This isn't my area of expertise, so I like to do more reading than talking on the subject.
My major concern would be making sure that all these safeguards and threats are actually meaningful, i.e., Iran can't go back on them in 3 years without a consequence. It's too bad really, Iran is a culturally rich country with good people, from what I know. The fact they have the government they do is unfortunate.
Certainly, this is the main concern/issue everyone has and been the main point of contention with Iran (ie can we reach an agreement , and you're in luck because most FP think-tanks in DC have been discussing the issue quite frequently. Eg. this one from Brookings.
From my perspective and reading, this deal accomplishes most of what we need from Iran, and has fairly good measures to respond, in the event that Iran breaches the agreement.
1) Sanction relief (and other such resolutions) for nuclear activities will begin only after IAEA inspectors verify that Iran is in compliance (keep in mind that the agreement currently makes Iran one of the most heavily inspected nations, in nuclear terms, in the world), and only affects sanctions/resolutions pertaining to their nuclear program (while retaining any/all regarding human rights, support for Hezbollah, etc.).
This I think will be negotiated: the Iranian Foreign Minister would seem to prefer if the sanctions were rolled back as progress was made to ensure that there is a guarantee the US will fulfill its end of the bargain of lifting sanctions. I don't find this unreasonable, but from how the agreement is currently worded, it's actually ludicrously favorable for the US, since we technically don't need to lift a finger until after Iran upholds their commitments. This point specifically is what I'm surprised at.
2) The US will maintain the sanction infrastructure, even after the sanctions are removed, as a "stick", so they may resume if it appears Iran is no longer abiding by the agreement in good faith. So, essentially, if Iran decides to back out midway through the agreement, we can revert to the status quo efficiently.
I'm, personally, quite satisfied with the deal as is, given there's very little reason not to sign it with the failsafes we have in place already. If we discover a breach, we reinstate current sanctions, and this time with improved international support; meanwhile, they've weakened their nuclear program in the interim to reach the point where sanctions are lifted. Which, basically, means if the Iranians were indeed signing in bad faith, they'd be stupid to sign it, as is.
On April 04 2015 04:04 Introvert wrote: Idk from what I've read most objections are the same, or they are at least logical extensions of previous concerns. But there could be new things. I'm not up to date on Israel's exact position either.
I was mainly trying to point out there is an argument to be had, not a therapeutic bashing session.
The main issue with them objecting now is that the negotiations have been going on for a long time and they had ample opportunities to provide input into the process. If they did and their suggestions were not viable, they could have been told that and at least they could have made their opinion known.
Bringing up the complaints now, after the deal has been hashed out over the nearly a year’s worth of work is just a political stunt. Of course they can have input into the language and how the final treaty reads, but saying the deal is terrible is just a political maneuver.
EPT
