Why is the Obama Administration So Hellbent on Making Iran Agreement?

[SDBoiler1]

It appears the Supreme Leader of Iran has published a book with his plans. His intent seems pretty clear. So the question remains "why does Obama seem so hellbent on making an agreement with Iran"?

http://nypost.com/2015/08/01/iran-publishes-book-on-how-to-outwit-us-and-destroy-israel/

 

[buygreekbonds]

It appears the Supreme Leader of Iran has published a book with his plans. His intent seems pretty clear. So the question remains "why does Obama seem so hellbent on making an agreement with Iran"?

http://nypost.com/2015/08/01/iran-publishes-book-on-how-to-outwit-us-and-destroy-israel/

Another issue, does anyone in the Obama administration understand how many different ways that uranium can be enriched without using centrifuges?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

 

[qazplm]

It appears the Supreme Leader of Iran has published a book with his plans. His intent seems pretty clear. So the question remains "why does Obama seem so hellbent on making an agreement with Iran"?

http://nypost.com/2015/08/01/iran-publishes-book-on-how-to-outwit-us-and-destroy-israel/

So the solution is what then?

China wants a deal. Russia wants a deal. Europe wants a deal. Sanctions are no longer viable because too many nations won't do them so long as they are satisfied with the concessions, and they clearly are.

So EVEN if Obama said no deal, hardball, sanctions, the rest of the world would say, looks good enough to me, no sanctions.

So we'd place sanctions. MAYBE Britain. And the rest of the world would start trading with them, particularly Russia and China.

They were pretty much a month or so away as it stands now. So no deal, they simply go the rest of the way.

If you think the answer is bombing them, please tell me how we'd get all the sites, and why bombing them wouldn't simply increase their resolve?

 

[SDBoiler1]

So the solution is what then?

China wants a deal. Russia wants a deal. Europe wants a deal. Sanctions are no longer viable because too many nations won't do them so long as they are satisfied with the concessions, and they clearly are.

So EVEN if Obama said no deal, hardball, sanctions, the rest of the world would say, looks good enough to me, no sanctions.

So we'd place sanctions. MAYBE Britain. And the rest of the world would start trading with them, particularly Russia and China.

They were pretty much a month or so away as it stands now. So no deal, they simply go the rest of the way.

If you think the answer is bombing them, please tell me how we'd get all the sites, and why bombing them wouldn't simply increase their resolve?

This agreement is a complete smokescreen. It seems obvious to many people that Iran has no intention of keeping their word and abiding by this agreement. Immediately after is was "signed", the Supreme Leader announced that he hadn't agreed to what Obama said Iran had. After years of flouting UN Resolutions and other so-called agreements, how can you take anything Iran signs or supposedly agrees to seriously? To them, the USA is the "Great Satan".

And who cares what China and Russia want? They are in league with Iran, because Iran helps further their individual and mutually-beneficial causes. Right now their causes are generally at odds with the causes of the USA.

 

[qazplm]

This agreement is a complete smokescreen. It seems obvious to many people that Iran has no intention of keeping their word and abiding by this agreement. Immediately after is was "signed", the Supreme Leader announced that he hadn't agreed to what Obama said Iran had. After years of flouting UN Resolutions and other so-called agreements, how can you take anything Iran signs or supposedly agrees to seriously? To them, the USA is the "Great Satan".

And who cares what China and Russia want? They are in league with Iran, because Iran helps further their individual and mutually-beneficial causes. Right now their causes are generally at odds with the causes of the USA.

Who cares? Because if you want sanctions to work you need China and Russia to abide by them or they are meaningless.
So if it doesn't matter what Iran says, and they are so dead set on getting a bomb, and our own intelligence community publicly says they are a month away, then why don't they have a bomb already? What's stopping them? Please don't say sanctions.

Are having inspectors in the country better or worse for us? For Iran? Which would you prefer? Inspectors or no inspectors?

I'll ask again, the solution is what then? What stops Iran from forever and ever getting a bomb? What stops them from getting a bomb in the next year? The next ten years?

I'm sure your answer is bomb them, but feel free to surprise me.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

There is no part of me that trusts that Iran - like Syria - will live up to their end of the bargain. But in this case I agree with qaz: something needed done. Time will tell if it is the right answer. I'm not optimistic, but I'm also not blaming Obama/Kerry for trying. The deal, while probably won't be followed, seems a good one. The ball, now, is in Iran's court, and if they reneg on the deal, you hammer the shit out of them.

The reality is Iran is not a direct threat to the United States even with a weapon. Their proxies are, but Iran will talk big... They want no part of the U.S. right now. They just use rhetoric and try to provoke us into taking stupid actions that they can flaunt to the international community.

 

[Purdue97]

Who cares? Because if you want sanctions to work you need China and Russia to abide by them or they are meaningless.
So if it doesn't matter what Iran says, and they are so dead set on getting a bomb, and our own intelligence community publicly says they are a month away, then why don't they have a bomb already? What's stopping them? Please don't say sanctions.

Are having inspectors in the country better or worse for us? For Iran? Which would you prefer? Inspectors or no inspectors?

I'll ask again, the solution is what then? What stops Iran from forever and ever getting a bomb? What stops them from getting a bomb in the next year? The next ten years?

I'm sure your answer is bomb them, but feel free to surprise me.

Well the answer what stops Iran from getting a bomb now or ten yeas from now is obviously nothing. Bombing will obviously delay it some-not sure anything but all out invasion stops it.

As for the questions about inspectors-that is a bit more complicated. The way the agreement apparently works is Iran can 'delay' inspections up to 24 days by going through proper channels.. Lot of time to hide and move stuff although will say tough to cover up nuclear work. Iran has pretty much said all along they will follow the parts of the agreement they want to follow when they choose to follow them. So having 'inspectors' in this case IMO is at best overrated and worst null and void.

The main question I have with all of this is a bit different-Why does the USA bother so much with treaties/agreements when they know the main country they are dealing with is really not going to abide by them anyway?

Sorry, but I see this 'agreement' being used in the future after it is broken, to be used as a way to justify bombing, an invasion, or all out war.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Well the answer what stops Iran from getting a bomb now or ten yeas from now is obviously nothing. Bombing will obviously delay it some-not sure anything but all out invasion stops it.

As for the questions about inspectors-that is a bit more complicated. The way the agreement apparently works is Iran can 'delay' inspections up to 24 days by going through proper channels.. Lot of time to hide and move stuff although will say tough to cover up nuclear work. Iran has pretty much said all along they will follow the parts of the agreement they want to follow when they choose to follow them. So having 'inspectors' in this case IMO is at best overrated and worst null and void.

The main question I have with all of this is a bit different-Why does the USA bother so much with treaties/agreements when they know the main country they are dealing with is really not going to abide by them anyway?

Sorry, but I see this 'agreement' being used in the future after it is broken, to be used as a way to justify bombing, an invasion, or all out war.

Perhaps, but you bother with it so the bombing, invasion, or all out war isn't UNjustified.

 

[qazplm]

Perhaps, but you bother with it so the bombing, invasion, or all out war isn't UNjustified.

That's absolutely true. IF Iran is caught breaking this agreement THEN you can gather international support for other options. But as long as Iran isn't caught, you cannot make the "well they'll just violate any agreement anyways so we went ahead and bombed them preemptively" argument and have much of any support.

Thus, you make agreements like this and either Iran does stick by it, which, then great. OR they violate in which case you can say see, we did it our due diligence, now we have to use stronger measures.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

That's absolutely true. IF Iran is caught breaking this agreement THEN you can gather international support for other options. But as long as Iran isn't caught, you cannot make the "well they'll just violate any agreement anyways so we went ahead and bombed them preemptively" argument and have much of any support.

Thus, you make agreements like this and either Iran does stick by it, which, then great. OR they violate in which case you can say see, we did it our due diligence, now we have to use stronger measures.

Or third, and most likely in my opinion, they violate it and you can't catch them or provide hard evidence.

Syria is easy because Assad has used chemical weapons again since "destroying" all of them, but we're on Assad's side now... So...

 

[qazplm]

Or third, and most likely in my opinion, they violate it and you can't catch them or provide hard evidence.

Syria is easy because Assad has used chemical weapons again since "destroying" all of them, but we're on Assad's side now... So...

I don't agree it's the most likely option. If it were, they'd have nukes already.
I don't even think they are of one mind that they do or do not want nukes.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I don't agree it's the most likely option. If it were, they'd have nukes already.
I don't even think they are of one mind that they do or do not want nukes.

I disagree they'd have them necessarily. Sure, if they dedicated 100% to it, maybe. They don't have the resources to obtain, let alone enrich, that much nuclear material. I do agree that there are many opinions as to whether they really want them. Some do because they recognize the legitimacy it grants them and, well, Israel.

But in the end, Iran is smart to play coy either way and gain concessions from the rest of the world, especially if they really don't care!

 

[Purdue97]

Perhaps, but you bother with it so the bombing, invasion, or all out war isn't UNjustified.

That's absolutely true. IF Iran is caught breaking this agreement THEN you can gather international support for other options. But as long as Iran isn't caught, you cannot make the "well they'll just violate any agreement anyways so we went ahead and bombed them preemptively" argument and have much of any support.

Thus, you make agreements like this and either Iran does stick by it, which, then great. OR they violate in which case you can say see, we did it our due diligence, now we have to use stronger measures.

I realized both points before I put in my response-just do not really agree, or maybe care for them is a better way to put it. That entire agreement with Iraq showed several things. 1) Countries agree to these treaties or pacts, and then no one follows them. Iraq never followed it. The countries signed to agreement except for USA and GBR for the most part did not follow it. There was 'justifiable' cause for war and to gain support for it-but nobody wanted that either. NK, same thing.

IMO, should have tightened up the sanctions. Then sit down and tell Iran that they keep up the rhetoric and actions, depending on who is in the White House at the time, one of the three will happen 1) Israel will attack you 2) The USA will do it for them 3) or your neighbors such as SA/Jordan etc will. Ball is in your court.

This really is all about trying to score a Diplomatic Win to help with legacy points. Who really cares? Instead of following some 'agreement' as to what a possible reaction would be, the USA should be doing what they feel/think is best for itself and allies in terms of defense.

 

[qazplm]

I realized both points before I put in my response-just do not really agree, or maybe care for them is a better way to put it. That entire agreement with Iraq showed several things. 1) Countries agree to these treaties or pacts, and then no one follows them. Iraq never followed it. The countries signed to agreement except for USA and GBR for the most part did not follow it. There was 'justifiable' cause for war and to gain support for it-but nobody wanted that either. NK, same thing.

IMO, should have tightened up the sanctions. Then sit down and tell Iran that they keep up the rhetoric and actions, depending on who is in the White House at the time, one of the three will happen 1) Israel will attack you 2) The USA will do it for them 3) or your neighbors such as SA/Jordan etc will. Ball is in your court.

This really is all about trying to score a Diplomatic Win to help with legacy points. Who really cares? Instead of following some 'agreement' as to what a possible reaction would be, the USA should be doing what they feel/think is best for itself and allies in terms of defense.

How do you "tighten up the sanctions" when no one else wanted to "tighten up the sanctions" but us?
You realize other nations follow their own foreign policy and it doesn't always align with ours right? If Russia, and China, and other nations think/thought Iran was negotiating in good faith, and clearly they do, then they are not going to "tighten sanctions" because we don't want to negotiate with them. So we get the worst of both worlds, no sanctions other than from us, and no inspectors or agreement.

 

[Jedifick]

“We have repeatedly said we don’t negotiate with the U.S. on regional or international affairs; not even on bilateral issues. There are some exceptions like the nuclear program that we negotiated with the Americans to serve our interests.”

U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s, he said in a speech at a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

“We will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the people of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon. Even after this deal our policy towards the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Saturday, July 18th.

But yeah, keep defending our own "supreme leader" and the party line, obviously they respect our government about as much as I do.

 

[Purdue97]

How do you "tighten up the sanctions" when no one else wanted to "tighten up the sanctions" but us?
You realize other nations follow their own foreign policy and it doesn't always align with ours right? If Russia, and China, and other nations think/thought Iran was negotiating in good faith, and clearly they do, then they are not going to "tighten sanctions" because we don't want to negotiate with them. So we get the worst of both worlds, no sanctions other than from us, and no inspectors or agreement.

Really the main thing the USA could do in terms of sanctions would be to tighten the grip on Iranian banks. Allow no primary dealings with Iranian banks with US banks/funds/markets. In addition to this do not allow secondary banking with them. In other words if a bank in another country dealt with Iran, or money was given to said bank from Iran, that bank does not do business in USA. Has been done in the past.

Generally speaking, "You realize other nations follow their own foreign policy and it doesn't always align with ours right?", that is my point. Whether agreements are signed and/or followed or not, other countries are going to largely do what they want to do anyway. That is what happened with the NK and Iraq pacts. That is why largely for me, this is just a non issue. Obama sells it as a triumph, Republicans say it is a disaster, for me, just do not think it matters much. Israel, SA, UAE, etc think Iran is to much of an issue they will do something outside the agreement or even unilaterally. Same for the USA. I think Russia and China generally support Iran's spreading of chaos in the ME and will give Iran more latitude.

 

[qazplm]

Really the main thing the USA could do in terms of sanctions would be to tighten the grip on Iranian banks. Allow no primary dealings with Iranian banks with US banks/funds/markets. In addition to this do not allow secondary banking with them. In other words if a bank in another country dealt with Iran, or money was given to said bank from Iran, that bank does not do business in USA. Has been done in the past.

Generally speaking, "You realize other nations follow their own foreign policy and it doesn't always align with ours right?", that is my point. Whether agreements are signed and/or followed or not, other countries are going to largely do what they want to do anyway. That is what happened with the NK and Iraq pacts. That is why largely for me, this is just a non issue. Obama sells it as a triumph, Republicans say it is a disaster, for me, just do not think it matters much. Israel, SA, UAE, etc think Iran is to much of an issue they will do something outside the agreement or even unilaterally. Same for the USA. I think Russia and China generally support Iran's spreading of chaos in the ME and will give Iran more latitude.

So you think by tightening our grip on Iranian banks and not allowing them to deal with our banks that will do it?

So you think we will stop doing business with China if they dealt with Iran? Really?

 

[Jedifick]

Id rather not have our banks working with country that is going to fund organizations that literally want to saw your head off, regardless of your stance on iran.

 

[qazplm]

Id rather not have our banks working with country that is going to fund organizations that literally want to saw your head off, regardless of your stance on iran.

So it's not about nukes at all then. Well, we had a President a few years ago who literally sent them arms, were you upset about that?

 

[Jedifick]

Indeed i was, just like weaponizing syria and iraq, which also backfired in our face. Nukes are just the ultimate blunder.

 

[Purdue97]

So you think by tightening our grip on Iranian banks and not allowing them to deal with our banks that will do it?

So you think we will stop doing business with China if they dealt with Iran? Really?

This is nothing the USA has not done before. Also, I think you substituted country for bank. If the USA chose to put restrictions on another said country beside Iran that would be something totally different. Not at all out of the question but different than blocking a bank(s) and/or money funnelled through them.

 

[lbodel]

It appears the Supreme Leader of Iran has published a book with his plans. His intent seems pretty clear. So the question remains "why does Obama seem so hellbent on making an agreement with Iran"?

http://nypost.com/2015/08/01/iran-publishes-book-on-how-to-outwit-us-and-destroy-israel/

It's not just Obama, it's most of the first world. Why do they all want it too?

 

[Purdue97]

It's not just Obama, it's most of the first world. Why do they all want it too?

-That should be obvious. The agreement is not even official yet and -

-Iran's general that is a wanted terrorist has already been, or reportedly been to Russia
-Russia has reportedly sold or is negotiating with Iran in arms(they want to support unrest)
-China is in talks with them to give them 30 generation 4 fighters in exchange for the rights to a huge oil field for a few decades

The answer is happening right in front of you.

 

[qazplm]

-That should be obvious. The agreement is not even official yet and -

-Iran's general that is a wanted terrorist has already been, or reportedly been to Russia
-Russia has reportedly sold or is negotiating with Iran in arms(they want to support unrest)
-China is in talks with them to give them 30 generation 4 fighters in exchange for the rights to a huge oil field for a few decades

The answer is happening right in front of you.

Yes and the rest of the world was tired of the sanctions and as long as they thought Iran was remotely bargaining in good faith they were going to get rid of them.

Yet you think us alone would have stopped china or Russia from dealing with them...it wouldn't have and instead of a deal with inspections we'd have nothing with all the same things you listed happening.

 

[lbodel]

-That should be obvious. The agreement is not even official yet and -

-Iran's general that is a wanted terrorist has already been, or reportedly been to Russia
-Russia has reportedly sold or is negotiating with Iran in arms(they want to support unrest)
-China is in talks with them to give them 30 generation 4 fighters in exchange for the rights to a huge oil field for a few decades

The answer is happening right in front of you.

I'm not talking about Russia or China.

 

[Purdue97]

Yes and the rest of the world was tired of the sanctions and as long as they thought Iran was remotely bargaining in good faith they were going to get rid of them.

Yet you think us alone would have stopped china or Russia from dealing with them...it wouldn't have and instead of a deal with inspections we'd have nothing with all the same things you listed happening.

Uh no. My point and stance on this from the beginning is why bother? Countries are going to do what they want to do anyway, regardless of an agreement. Never once did I think the US was going to prevent China Or Russia, or even France for that matter from doing what they want. Again, real similar to Iraq and NK deals.

Should have just kept sanctions in place and told Iran if/when you get to far out of line Israel, other Arab countries, or the US will make it rain on you.

Great, we sort of have rights to inspection after almost a month of what would be deemed legal delays. Who knows what happens after that 24 day period? Iran gets to legally fortify its military, and continue going about raising the unrest in the ME, and will have nukes before long. China gets cheap access to oil and Russia gets the unrest it needs for higher oil prices. The deal is not even in place yet and aforementioned countries are getting/doing what they want. USA really got nothing out of this IMO.

 

[qazplm]

Uh no. My point and stance on this from the beginning is why bother? Countries are going to do what they want to do anyway, regardless of an agreement. Never once did I think the US was going to prevent China Or Russia, or even France for that matter from doing what they want. Again, real similar to Iraq and NK deals.

Should have just kept sanctions in place and told Iran if/when you get to far out of line Israel, other Arab countries, or the US will make it rain on you.

Great, we sort of have rights to inspection after almost a month of what would be deemed legal delays. Who knows what happens after that 24 day period? Iran gets to legally fortify its military, and continue going about raising the unrest in the ME, and will have nukes before long. China gets cheap access to oil and Russia gets the unrest it needs for higher oil prices. The deal is not even in place yet and aforementioned countries are getting/doing what they want. USA really got nothing out of this IMO.

So if they were going to do that "anyways" then instead of no inspectors and them doing it anyways, we got inspectors. And you seem to think hiding evidence of nuclear activity is as easy as hiding it under the carpet. How do you think we caught them before?

 

[Purdue97]

So if they were going to do that "anyways" then instead of no inspectors and them doing it anyways, we got inspectors. And you seem to think hiding evidence of nuclear activity is as easy as hiding it under the carpet. How do you think we caught them before?

I said earlier i this thread that nuclear material is not so easy to clean up or hide. Look, I am just not bent on having inspectors or not having them. I think, like with all of these agreements, that countries end up doing what is best for them anyway. That is why I am not real critical of the agreement because I think it is good/bad nor am I critical of the politicians that will not support it because they think it is bad. Great, the USA got inspectors, watch them now get jerked around more than the inspectors in NK and Iraq did.

 

[lbodel]

I said earlier i this thread that nuclear material is not so easy to clean up or hide. Look, I am just not bent on having inspectors or not having them. I think, like with all of these agreements, that countries end up doing what is best for them anyway. That is why I am not real critical of the agreement because I think it is good/bad nor am I critical of the politicians that will not support it because they think it is bad. Great, the USA got inspectors, watch them now get jerked around more than the inspectors in NK and Iraq did.

I think you're pointing out why many don't find it to be bad - if Iran is messing around, the sanctions can go right back in place and the deal is void. And there's actually teeth to it.

The language in place means that the US can go back and impose the sanctions via the UN - and doesn't allow a veto by Russia or China.

So I don't think arguing about whether Iran will play by the rules or not is really the issue.

You can argue that Iran shouldn't have the ability to become armed in 15 years - but then again, what is the alternative? War?

 

[qazplm]

I said earlier i this thread that nuclear material is not so easy to clean up or hide. Look, I am just not bent on having inspectors or not having them. I think, like with all of these agreements, that countries end up doing what is best for them anyway. That is why I am not real critical of the agreement because I think it is good/bad nor am I critical of the politicians that will not support it because they think it is bad. Great, the USA got inspectors, watch them now get jerked around more than the inspectors in NK and Iraq did.

The inspectors in Iraq said there weren't any, and they were right. I have no idea what the inspectors in NK said, but obviously if they said there were not any they were wrong. The inspectors in Iran actually identified what they were doing, it's how we got to sanctions in the first place at least partially.

So strikes me "inspectors" are 2/3.

 

[qazplm]

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...s-and-admirals-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1689/

 

[Purdue97]

Well, if it is true that I ran is responsible for its own inspections this is a bigger joke than I thought. Seriously, what the heck is the point?