The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

[touchring]

Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

There is more to Israel than Jerusalem. There is Tel Aviv, Haifa, etc. Secondly, Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. That means the government, and possibly the military, have links to terrorists. There is also the issue that Iran would give the bomb (or the know how) to other nations.

What you want is not what Mr Hussein wants.

As for Iran, they maybe a sponsor of terrorism, but at least the terrorists they support are not crazy but rational players, unlike the ones created in Syria.

[Polish_Silver]

Separating the questions

By the standards of the region Iran is a nation that actually works.

In contrast, there are two essentially failed states that already possess nuclear weapon capability...one of them an alleged USA ally.

The Iran nuclear debate is a sideshow. Don't narrow your scan. From a post on another thread back in 2008:

Based on my reading, Pakistan is a much bigger problem than a nuclear Iran would be.

But what is the other "failed state" with nukes? North Korea?

I worked with an Iranian for a couple years, whose family was somewhat pro-Shah, and he said that even the Ayatollah was not as "crazy" as western media made him out to be. I mean what are some hostages compared to the US pushing a cruel (and incompetent) dictator on them for 30 years?

I think we have to separate the questions:

1) Holding everything else constant, is the treaty a good or bad thing?

The treaty would not force them to build one 10 years from now, but lack of one might allow them to build one next year.

2) How do we keep Iran (or any other nation) from getting nuclear weapons?

The prestige factor seems to be enormous at least for Pakistan, and apparently was a factor for India

[Polish_Silver]

Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

What you want is not what Mr Hussein wants.

As for Iran, they maybe a sponsor of terrorism, but at least the terrorists they support are not crazy but rational players, unlike the ones created in Syria.

A rational player might use a big stick, if it suited his purpose.

[Woodsman]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

Related to this thread: When you criticize the Emperor, he retaliates...

It's not at all related. It's the latest GOP talking point:

Cruz: Menendez probe politically motivated



Des Moines, Iowa -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) suggested Saturday that the Justice Department’s criminal corruption charges against Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) are political retribution against the New Jersey Democrat for opposing the White House’s negotiations with Iran.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ally-motivated

I'm always impressed by the party discipline of GOPers and their "independents" when promoting these smelly red herrings, but it seems the rest of us are required to lobotomize ourselves in order to believe it.

Menendez has been associated with corruption since he was elected mayor. The guy is corrupt as the day is long, but if he's on the Likud team it's because he criticized the king. The best one can say of this is that it's typical of the kind of "independent" analysis we've learned to expect these days.

Since entering politics as a corruption-fighting mayor of Union City, N.J., Mr. Menendez has become a proponent of business as usual. He has long been an entrenched de facto leader of the Hudson County Democratic machine."

--"New Jersey's New Senator". The New York Times. December 9, 2005.

Republican state lawmakers filed an ethics complaint against Menendez, alleging he broke conflict-of-interest rules when he rented property out to a nonprofit agency that receives federal funds. Menendez helped the organization win designation as a Federally Qualified Health Center in 1998. That designation allowed the agency to receive additional federal grants/

"Feds probe Menendez rental deal: Senator took in at least $300,000 from nonprofit in Union City".
-- The Star-Ledger. September 8, 2006.

An effort to recall Senator Menendez was launched in early 2010 by a group of New Jersey citizens.
Fuchs, Mary (February 5, 2010).

-- "Tea Party activists look to unseat U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez". Newark Star-Ledger (NJ.com).

In 2010, The Wall Street Journal reported that Menendez had written to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke,[113] asking him to approve an acquisition that would rescue from the prospect of receivership a New Jersey bank, First Bank Americano, operated by Menendez contributors.[114] It was discovered that "eight of 15 directors, including the bank’s chairman and vice-chairman, have been contributors to Menendez or his political action committee."

-- "Menendez Sought Bank Bailout For Campaign Contributors". NJ Today. CMD Media. Archived from the original on February 16, 2012.

A federal grand jury in Miami is investigating Menendez regarding his role in advocating for the business interests of ophthalmologist Salomon Melgen.[134][135] Menendez's efforts to push U.S. government officials to enforce a lucrative port security contract would benefit one of his major donors, Dr. Salomon E. Melgen, as well as Pedro Pablo Permuy, a former national security adviser and senior legislative aide to Mr. Menendez.[136] In 2012, Melgen's business had donated over $700,000 to Majority PAC, a political action committee supporting Democratic candidates; the PAC spent more than $582,000 on Menendez's behalf.

-- Jackson, Henry; Braun, Stephen (2013-02-12). "Report: Menendez emails sought to aid donor’s firm". nbclatino.com

So who can blame them for wanting to change the subject? It's becoming increasingly clear to Adelson and the Likudniks in the GOP that they miscalculated the effect of Bibi's speech. In Israel, that is. Here in the United States of Amnesia Bibi is our own Winston Churchill, wouldn't you know.

Even so, I expect Bibi will still be Israel's Prime Minister (and America's Minister of Levantine Affairs). Such is life these days, but it does salve the wound a bit to know that there are a few people of conscience left in Israel who see Bibi and Likud for the meshugganahs they are.

Tens of thousands of Israelis attended a rally to demand a new government Saturday night in Rabin Square. Israel Police estimated that 40,000 people attended; the event’s organizers claimed more than 80,000 people showed up.

But we meshugganahs here at home; we lap it up like a dog eats his vomit.

Update, post election:

The first conclusion that arose just minutes after the announcement of the exit polls was particularly discouraging: The nation must be replaced. Not another election for the country's leadership, but general elections to choose a new Israeli people – immediately. The country urgently needs that. It won’t be able to stand another term for Benjamin Netanyahu, who emerged last night as the man who will form the next government.

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.647555

[vt]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

No one can deny that Menendez has a corrupt history. But no more than and possibly less than Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, or Nancy Pelosi.
Of course you have countless Republicans like Bob McDonnell, and Grimm of Staten Island.

How about Charlie Randall, senior house Democrat on the tax committee. The king of tax evasion! Too many corruption stories on both sides of the aisle to count.

But only Menendez is accused by Obama's justice department. And he has been a harsh critic of Obama on Iran and Cuba.

Do you believe that nuclear proliferation in the Middle East will not be a huge risk to global peace?

[GRG55]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

...Do you believe that nuclear proliferation in the Middle East will not be a huge risk to global peace?

Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is first a threat to peace (such that it is) in the Middle East itself. Before any such weapons are turned against the United States they will be using them to kill each other (and it is unlikely it will be the Iranians that start it).

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

That's the problem; if Iran get its, the other major Mideast players follow. The more unstable regimes that have a nuke the better the chance one will use it.

That's very concerning.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...-proliferation

Its a tough one.

Iran gets nukes, and Saudi responds with renting/leasing warheads from Pakistan to arms it's little known Chinese made IRBM missiles run by a very close member of the Saudi ruling elite.

Which makes Pakistan a "player" again, akin to a prostitute to the truly powerful.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is first a threat to peace (such that it is) in the Middle East itself. Before any such weapons are turned against the United States they will be using them to kill each other (and it is unlikely it will be the Iranians that start it).

While I would agree, many will not, and they have genuine reason to believe so.

Here's the thing:

If I was my age and similar position in Iran, I would want nukes too.

Nixon promised a full nuclear fuel cycle to Iran under the Shah, and Israel worked closely with Iran on a large number of Iranian financed weapons deals.

Then revolution and invasion by Saddam.

Iran had to send soldiers wounded by Iraqi WMDs to Switzerland to get any international media attention, and even then it was limited.

The US accidentally shoots down an Iranian Airbus killing Iranian civilians and the commander gets a medal.

No one messes too much with Pakistan and Noeth Korea, despite their going full retard sometimes.

Going nuclear makes sense.

But where it goes full retard for Iran is their long history of very successful use of asymmetric warfare.

They'd be stupid to engage in conventional operations because they've lost miserably when they have.

So Iran has become world class at asymmetric warfare, which when you add a nuclear angle makes people justifiably very nervous, especially considering the question of who controls them?

As the IRGC has become not just the guardians of the revolution but the institution that controls the largest single chunk of the Iranian economy, it's not a question of whether Iranians are rational actors in aggregate, but whether thenIRgC and theocracy are.

How much do you discount the fiery domestic rhetoric from the highest levels of the IRGC and theocracy?

What one calls theatrics others call threats.

I think there is less fear of 1000 nukes in the hands of a rational actor than 1 in the hands of an irrational actor.

Asymmetric delivery in a globalised world, even just a terror weapon is hard to defend against. Personally, I think the use of a radioactive/nuclear terror weapon is nearly inevitable.

[Southernguy]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

So far: 1) Only one country in history nuked people
2) There is only one countre with nukes in ME. Several hundreds of them, by the way
The rest is speculation

[lakedaemonian]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

By the standards of the region Iran is a nation that actually works.

In contrast, there are two essentially failed states that already possess nuclear weapon capability...one of them an alleged USA ally.

The Iran nuclear debate is a sideshow. Don't narrow your scan. From a post on another thread back in 2008:

I would far rather visit Iran, than either Egypt or Pakistan.

Iran has achieved much since the revolution, surprisingly in a way not too indifferent from Israel.

Austerity breeds things like necessity. You don't see Saudis displaying anywhere near the same level of capability.

People joke at Iranian made manufactured goods. But achieving 80's/90's standards under severe constraints is still fairly impressive.

But in having said that, while Iran can be differentiated a bit from the likes of Egypt and Pakistan, they ALL share the same scary common ground of the military(IRGC parallel armed forces in the case of Iran) controlling vast chunks of economic power across the country. Their respective militaries are not just economic forces, but overwhelming political forces as well.

What is the future for the three?

Turkey?

That's a scary proposition. Ataturk's military as the secular guardian with the right to "reboot" has been emasculated in the last decade as has Turkey's military control over the economy, which in itself isn't bad, but Turkey going down the track of an Islamic cult of personality very well may be.

Turkey is/was the "great Muslim hope". Rising GDP, PPP, diversified economy, etc. Yet still seems to be going the wrong way from a western perspective.

[GRG55]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

I would far rather visit Iran, than either Egypt or Pakistan.

Iran has achieved much since the revolution, surprisingly in a way not too indifferent from Israel.

Austerity breeds things like necessity. You don't see Saudis displaying anywhere near the same level of capability.

People joke at Iranian made manufactured goods. But achieving 80's/90's standards under severe constraints is still fairly impressive.

But in having said that, while Iran can be differentiated a bit from the likes of Egypt and Pakistan, they ALL share the same scary common ground of the military(IRGC parallel armed forces in the case of Iran) controlling vast chunks of economic power across the country. Their respective militaries are not just economic forces, but overwhelming political forces as well.

What is the future for the three?

Turkey?

That's a scary proposition. Ataturk's military as the secular guardian with the right to "reboot" has been emasculated in the last decade as has Turkey's military control over the economy, which in itself isn't bad, but Turkey going down the track of an Islamic cult of personality very well may be.

Turkey is/was the "great Muslim hope". Rising GDP, PPP, diversified economy, etc. Yet still seems to be going the wrong way from a western perspective.

I have been to all and every one is a wonderful, fascinating, often openly chaotic place. As I have written elsewhere on iTulip, Cairo is among the world's truly great cities. I do not think one can claim to have experienced the world if one has not, at a minimum, explored Egypt. But one has to completely set aside the stuff on CNN and form your own opinion.

In many of these countries the military is often the only government agency that the public has any faith in, given their own Govt Ministries and police forces are shaking them down one way or another every single day. Wasn't that never ending shake down the catalyst that led to the start of the "Arab Spring" in Tunisia.

Certainly we saw an example of the relationship between the military and the public as Spring arrived in Egypt. I know you will remember images like this from Tahrir Square when the army took over from the reviled police force to restore public order:




It is the military's direct access to income from sectors of the economy it controls that avoids the necessity for the sort of corruption petty bureaucrats and underpaid police officers impose daily on their citizens. Essentially the military, and the plum jobs in the Defense Force Ministry which skim from the armaments purchase contracts, are allowed a more sophisticated form of corruption in exchange for supporting the government (the only other place that is anywhere near as lucrative is to be at the top of the national airline, purchasing jetliners, in a wealthy Gulf state). As distasteful as all this sounds, partly because of this the military usually plays a stabilizing role in these countries.

This is, of course, nothing new. Re-read Boris Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago, and note the dramatically different outcomes in so many small, mundane ways on Yuri and his half-brother General Yevgraf in the immediate aftermath of the revolution.

Turkey has embarked on an experiment of some peril it would seem. Egypt tried to do the same thing and the military refused to support it. It was within my lifetime that the military of next-door Greece deposed its government for 3/4 of a decade. These circumstances all have variations of course, but I think that having isolated its military Turkey has removed one of the most important national stabilizing influences. It matters little if Turkey is "going the wrong way from a western perspective"; what will matter is if Turkey is going the wrong way from its own citizen's perspective. That remains to be seen.

[astonas]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

Very interesting, GRG55, thank you for your always-illuminating perspectives on the region.

The more I read about Iran (and Israel's history of crying wolf about it to stir up fear and funding from the U.S.) the more overdue the efforts to bring it into the stabilizing fold of trading nations seem. For starters, it would make the enforcement of any potential nuclear proliferation deal far more likely to stick, and be renewable.

But I don't have your experience there. The Iranian people do have a history of being much more open to modern western ideals than their current government permits. In your estimation, how much of that more open-minded culture has survived the Ayatollahs? Oppressive regimes can, given a span of time measured in generations, certainly alter the mindset of a people. But one can also point to examples of cultural norms that have persisted stubbornly through many determined governments, arguably even over hundreds of years.

Perhaps you'll indulge my question in a speculative form, to match its intrinsically speculative nature:

If one could magically wave a wand* and change the government of Iran to a parliamentary democracy, would you expect something like the bloodbath in Iraq? The riots in Egypt? Something like Erdogan's Turkey? Or dare one hope for something more enlightened than any of these?

My reading so far is edging me toward the latter, but without context, that remains a suspicion, nowhere close to a conclusion.

I thought at the time and still think the notion of being "greeted as liberators" in Iraq was a ridiculous idea, and those with more expertise than I raised concerns about suppressed sectarian hatreds well before that war was inevitable. But Iran is not Iraq, and my knowledge of the former is insufficient to guess at what might lie beneath the surface of the oppression. Are there similar longstanding repressed feuds (intensifying through suppression) waiting to explode into the open? Is even a momentary power vacuum a certain recipe for disaster? Or is there instead something very different: a chafing under the mandated religious garb, and a concealed desire to go back to better times when the west might be a friend?


* I also fully understand that a "war of liberation" could, and likely would, erase any goodwill. I suppose I'm mostly wondering if there's any potential goodwill there to start with (hence the hypothetical wand).

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

That's the problem; if Iran get its, the other major Mideast players follow. The more unstable regimes that have a nuke the better the chance one will use it.

That's very concerning.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...-proliferation

If everyone has a nuclear weapon, no one will use it.

In the end no one would win and everyone understands that.

Thus the reason India and Pakistan have never really gone to war except over Kashmir. The leaders in each country love their status and life too much to commit to nuclear suicide.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: The American People Don't Like The Terms Of The Iran Deal

But what's the alternative, Pro? Israel and Iran, arguably the two strongest regional powers in the ME, both of whom have to go through contortions in their state policies to meet the interests of the hegemon, itself under substantial stress. Seeing it in that light wouldn't do - too much Realpolitiks . . . .

To allow Iran to have nuclear technology.

Remember this is a country that cannot even refine it's own oil into gasoline and has to import it.

I don't believe Americans realize how moderate Iran really is. Sure they may practice Shia Islam but a large percentage of Iranians still wear the Farvahar to denote their historical understanding and love of the true Aryan Persian religion Zoroastrianism.

Islam is a Semitic religion, as is Christianity and Judaism. Zoroastrianism and the various Indian religions (Hinduism, Janism, Buddhism with Sikhism being a hybrid of Islam and Hinduism) are all originally Aryan religions.

I bring this up because in ME politics it matters. The Persians are Aryan's and as such have no claim or desire to conquer or control the Semitic people aside from Iraq (due to the historical ownership of Babylon by the Persians during their Empire), IMO.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Iranian nukes--not comfy at all!

If everyone has a nuclear weapon, no one will use it.

In the end no one would win and everyone understands that.

Thus the reason India and Pakistan have never really gone to war except over Kashmir. The leaders in each country love their status and life too much to commit to nuclear suicide.

Two problems with that:

1)irrational non state actors acquiring just 1 or several nuclear weapons

2)the lack of time/space between India/Pakistan dramatically increases the risk of a nuclear exchange between the two when compared to the superpowers during the Cold War, which themselves had a few very close calls where it was probably only the much greater time/space that saved us from a nuclear conflict.