Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In what world can Iran suddenly be trusted? Are you people insane?
There were many whom did not trust the leaders of the Soviet Union, starting, I guess, with the nuclear test-ban treaty of the early 1960s, followed by various other agreements. President Reagan was certainly no fan of the Soviet Union, but he did negotiate with them (saying, "trust, but verify").
There were many whom did not trust the leaders of the Soviet Union, starting, I guess, with the nuclear test-ban treaty of the early 1960s, followed by various other agreements. President Reagan was certainly no fan of the Soviet Union, but he did negotiate with them (saying, "trust, but verify").
......except they already were a nuclear-armed superpower who had to be dealt with as such. Obama is essentially agreeing to let Iran become a turn-key nuclear threshold state in 15 years. We have (had now?) enough leverage to prevent that just by playing hardball with the sanctions negotiations and keeping up the pressure, this is a really bad deal if you think Iran (and inevitably following them the Saudis, which is far worse and the biggest danger in this) being a nuclear power is not a good thing.
Negotiating a solution is smart. Essentially folding with a winning hand at the negotiating table is not.
......except they already were a nuclear-armed superpower who had to be dealt with as such. Obama is essentially agreeing to let Iran become a turn-key nuclear threshold state in 15 years. We have (had now?) enough leverage to prevent that just by playing hardball with the sanctions negotiations and keeping up the pressure, this is a really bad deal if you think Iran (and inevitably following them the Saudis, which is far worse and the biggest danger in this) being a nuclear power is not a good thing.
Negotiating a solution is smart. Essentially folding with a winning hand at the negotiating table is not.
We shall assume, for the sake of argument, that what you have been told is correct: that Iran is being allowed by "Obama"* to become a nuclear state in 15 years.
A lot can happen in 15 years. I would be willing to place a moderate bet that the Iran of 15 years hence is quite different from the Iran of today, just as the Iran of today (with leaders even willing to negotiate) is different from the Iran of 15 years ago. Heck, when I was a youth in the 1960s, I was under the impression that the Soviet Union, dedicated to wiping out the USA and allies, would be around forever, or at least my lifetime.
As I noted above, back in the days of the Soviet Union there were always 'hawks' who opposed making any deal with the Soviets. Of course, I do not recall that they ever proposed their own plan, except maybe to keep building more and more nuclear weapons and delivery systems (because 40,000 or whatever was not enough).
Perhaps if we kept sanctions in place, change would also take place in Iran someday. Of course, during most of my lifetime we have had an embargo against Cuba, yet a Castro is still in charge. These things are fraught with uncertainty.
*Why does everyone ignore the fact that this was not a "USA-Iran" only negotiation? That would quite upset the leaders of Russia, China, United Kingdom, Germany and France to be told that they were only spectators.
*Why does everyone ignore the fact that this was not a "USA-Iran" only negotiation? That would quite upset the leaders of Russia, China, United Kingdom, Germany and France to be told that they were only spectators.
...Because from everything that we in the public have heard, the deal wasn't so weak because of the other players, it was because of us. The Europeans wanted to take a firmer tack -- unsurprisingly, since our stance can only be explained by either (or both) our negotiators not really caring if Iran gets a turn-key nuclear capability in a few years or being grossly incompetent.
In what world can Iran suddenly be trusted? Are you people insane?
No sane person trusts Iran or wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. It would upset the balance of power throughout the Middle East and probably lead to a number of other countries in the area, like Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to go nuclear to defend themselves.
However, who is going to stop them? A Russian army or two near the northern border of Iran might convince Iran to end its nuclear program but I do not see the Russians lifting a finger. Nor the Turks or the Pakistanis who border Iran and who also have large armies. And forget about the Chinese or the Indians.
Why won't they help? They all think they can sit back because they expect one way or another the Americans will have to take care of it. Another war to wear down the overstreched Americans. But something unexpected happened to their game plan because the USA has a President who is resisting getting into another endless war.
They are right that there is nothing to gain by exterminating the enemy if you exterminate yourself also. Not only would Israeli bombs rein down on Iran but so would bombs from the U.S.
You people don't understand how the world works. Iran doesn't necessarily want nukes to destroy Israel. Having nukes is about power and deterrence . Why do you think the U.S. NEVER mess with Russia, china, or North Korea? Those countries have nukes. That countries that don't have nukes get attacker/invaded. Like Iraq , Afganistan, Serbia, etc.
We shall assume, for the sake of argument, that what you have been told is correct: that Iran is being allowed by "Obama"* to become a nuclear state in 15 years.
A lot can happen in 15 years. I would be willing to place a moderate bet that the Iran of 15 years hence is quite different from the Iran of today, just as the Iran of today (with leaders even willing to negotiate) is different from the Iran of 15 years ago. Heck, when I was a youth in the 1960s, I was under the impression that the Soviet Union, dedicated to wiping out the USA and allies, would be around forever, or at least my lifetime.
As I noted above, back in the days of the Soviet Union there were always 'hawks' who opposed making any deal with the Soviets. Of course, I do not recall that they ever proposed their own plan, except maybe to keep building more and more nuclear weapons and delivery systems (because 40,000 or whatever was not enough).
Perhaps if we kept sanctions in place, change would also take place in Iran someday. Of course, during most of my lifetime we have had an embargo against Cuba, yet a Castro is still in charge. These things are fraught with uncertainty.
*Why does everyone ignore the fact that this was not a "USA-Iran" only negotiation? That would quite upset the leaders of Russia, China, United Kingdom, Germany and France to be told that they were only spectators.
Sorry but no diplomat is going to make an agreement with Iran based on that Iran may become a civilized moderate society in the future.
France and the Arab states have already announced displeasure with the Frameworks. This deal will not curb Iranian expansionist policies in the region.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
