Iran Deal, the reset..... and halt

badbrains

Here's an article that BS prob won't read:

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/irans-nuclear-threat-is-a-myth.html



On April 21, Iran and six world powers resumed the final phase of nuclear talks after a preliminary framework deal reached earlier this month. Iran and the P5+1 countries — Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States — are expected to reach a final accord by the end of June.

Yet hawks in Washington and Israel continue to oppose the negotiations. They argue that Iran cannot be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon or even remain within sprinting distance of acquiring one. A nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Israel, they claim, and would likely provoke a nuclear arms race in the troubled Middle East. Others have suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran may even precipitate World War III, pushing the world closer to a nuclear winter.

Most of these fears are simply unfounded. In fact, even if Iran wanted a nuclear weapon and managed to obtain one, it would not be able to carry out a successful nuclear strike against Israel or the United States.

No ballistic missile option

Iran’s primary challenge in targeting the U.S. or Israel would be geographic. Roughly 1,100 miles separate the Islamic Republic from Israel’s borders. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which maintain joint missile-defense pacts with Israel, occupy much of the intervening space. This means that a missile from Iran could easily be intercepted by one of these countries before it reaches Israel.

Even if this first line of defense failed, Israel has three complementary missile defense systems that are among the most sophisticated in the world. Israel has the strongest military in the region and has recently quadrupled its air force’s striking power, which would allow the country to quickly intercept incoming projectiles.

Moreover, launching a surprise attack would be extraordinarily difficult, given Israel’s superior intelligence capabilities, which are focused almost entirely on Iran — not to mention its unprecedented cooperation with the United States.

Israel also has other geographical advantages: It would be nearly impossible for Iran to strike Israel without killing large numbers of Palestinians in the process. Iran has been one of the most vocal and consistent supporters of the Palestinian cause. Thus it is unthinkable that Tehran would carry out a nuclear strike, which could annihilate the Palestinian territories. Nuclear fallout from such a strike could prove devastating to southern Lebanon and western Syria, causing immense harm to two of Iran’s key regional allies, Hezbollah and the Syrian regime.

A strike on the United States would be even less plausible. To reach the U.S., an Iranian missile would have to deliver a nuclear payload more than 6,000 miles. The capacity of Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missiles is nowhere near this range, and it won’t be for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, the missile would have to make it through the network that protects Israel, cross the Mediterranean Sea and the North Atlantic, all without being detected or intercepted by NATO, the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy, U.S. satellites and Washington’s robust missile defense systems.

Clearly, any attempted nuclear strike on Israel or the U.S. is certain to fail. In fact, it would amount to suicide for Tehran. The regional and international response would be immediate, more or less unanimous and overwhelming in scale: The Islamic Republic would not survive.

The majority of the American public supports a nuclear deal as the best alternative to preventing – rather than enabling – Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Hawks contend that, even if it lacked the capacity to attack Israel or the U.S., Iran could provide highly enriched nuclear material to terrorist groups to be incorporated into a devastating dirty bomb that could be deployed against the U.S. or Israel. But this scenario is unlikely for a number of reasons.

For one, Iran’s regional allies — including Hezbollah, Hamas and Yemen’s Houthis —are primarily nationalistic and rarely operate outside their home countries or their perceived national interests. Moreover, none of these groups have a demonstrated intent or capability to attack the U.S. mainland. This is in part why U.S. intelligence recently removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats.

Moreover, dirty bombs are not weapons of mass destruction. A radiological dispersion device does not have much more explosive power than a conventional weapon. Moreover, the relatively small amounts of nuclear material emitted in the process are unlikely to pose a severe immediate or long-term health risk to the public.

Therefore, even if Iran’s proxies obtained nuclear material and decided to carry out a radiological attack in Israel or the United States, the effect would hardly be catastrophic. The consequences for Iran, on the other hand, would be.

No deterrence

The logic behind nuclear deterrence is that a country will be hesitant to carry out an attack against an adversary that possesses nuclear weapons, lest it use weapons of mass destruction in reprisal. However, given that Iran cannot carry out a successful nuclear strike against Israel or the United States under any conceivable circumstances, nuclear weapons would do little to deter Israel or the U.S. from attacking Tehran.

On the contrary, if in violation of its international commitments, Iran makes concrete steps toward developing and testing a nuclear weapon or manages to obtain one, that could be used as sufficient justification for a military intervention to disarm and possibly dismantle the Islamic Republic.

Iran’s procurement of a nuclear weapon would result in its becoming a pariah state like North Korea, with increased isolation. This is in stark contrast to the military, economic, geopolitical and ideological superpower it is poised to become if fully integrated into the international community. Hence Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is right to suggest that nuclear weapons hold no strategic value for Tehran.

Most nuclear nonproliferation and foreign policy experts, as well as the majority of the American public, support a nuclear deal as the best alternative to preventing — rather than enabling, Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Those presenting apocalyptic visions of nuclear-armed Iran are not independent ballistics experts. Instead, they are ideologues or parties who are aligned with one of Iran’s geopolitical adversaries or cynical politicians who want to exploit the Iranian bogeyman in the service of their domestic political agendas. In fact, even in the unlikely event that Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would hardly be the end of the world.

benjs

Nart, this article contains everything that the other pro-deal articles do: logic. I had thought (and BS, please correct me if I'm wrong about this) that BS' opinion was one where Iranian leaders do what ever is possible to bring upon a global dominance of Islam, and destruction of any who refuse to obey, rules to be dictated by Iranian leadership, risks (including the potential destruction of its own people) be damned.

If you believe that, then you're unlikely to be swayed by any logic, and I don't know that it's worth our time, energy, or frustration.

BS44325

benjs said:

Nart, this article contains everything that the other pro-deal articles do: logic. I had thought (and BS, please correct me if I'm wrong about this) that BS' opinion was one where Iranian leaders do what ever is possible to bring upon a global dominance of Islam, and destruction of any who refuse to obey, rules to be dictated by Iranian leadership, risks (including the potential destruction of its own people) be damned.

If you believe that, then you're unlikely to be swayed by any logic, and I don't know that it's worth our time, energy, or frustration.

No. Not exactly my opinion. I read that article and I am very familiar with that line of thought. Yes it does contain logic but again as I always say this whole disagreement comes down to what one thinks Iranian intentions are. I don't necessarily think that Iran is looking for global dominance of Islam or has an apocalyptic vision but I also don't think based on their past behavior that anyone can 100% rule it out. In my eyes the regime (again not the average citizen or average muslim) has been a belligerent actor on the world stage since the revolution. They are without a doubt sponsors of terror and they without a doubt do seek regional hegemony. That doesn't mean we need to bomb them or go to war but it does require us to be very wary of their actions and to be forward thinking on how this might affect western interests. Also when I...me personally....speak of western interests it is only in terms of long term peace and stability. I don't make a buck off oil but the spread of democracy and security which was once a very JFK Democrat style of foreign policy means something too me. I really believe that "history hasn't ended". There are bad actors on the world stage who are not interested in our respect for dialogue and negotiation. I believe Iran is one of those bad actors and no one should doubt that nuclear technology will eventually be followed by missile technology. Allowing this to proceed poses great risk.

badbrains

BS44325 said:

benjs said:

Nart, this article contains everything that the other pro-deal articles do: logic. I had thought (and BS, please correct me if I'm wrong about this) that BS' opinion was one where Iranian leaders do what ever is possible to bring upon a global dominance of Islam, and destruction of any who refuse to obey, rules to be dictated by Iranian leadership, risks (including the potential destruction of its own people) be damned.

If you believe that, then you're unlikely to be swayed by any logic, and I don't know that it's worth our time, energy, or frustration.

No. Not exactly my opinion. I read that article and I am very familiar with that line of thought. Yes it does contain logic but again as I always say this whole disagreement comes down to what one thinks Iranian intentions are. I don't necessarily think that Iran is looking for global dominance of Islam or has an apocalyptic vision but I also don't think based on their past behavior that anyone can 100% rule it out. In my eyes the regime (again not the average citizen or average muslim) has been a belligerent actor on the world stage since the revolution. They are without a doubt sponsors of terror and they without a doubt do seek regional hegemony. That doesn't mean we need to bomb them or go to war but it does require us to be very wary of their actions and to be forward thinking on how this might affect western interests. Also when I...me personally....speak of western interests it is only in terms of long term peace and stability. I don't make a buck off oil but the spread of democracy and security which was once a very JFK Democrat style of foreign policy means something too me. I really believe that "history hasn't ended". There are bad actors on the world stage who are not interested in our respect for dialogue and negotiation. I believe Iran is one of those bad actors and no one should doubt that nuclear technology will eventually be followed by missile technology. Allowing this to proceed poses great risk.

Ya terrorists, Iran, the same Iran doing our dirty work against IS. You've never been there yet think to know everything about them or what they stand for. For everything you say against them, it can be leveled against the U.S. or any other western country. Matter of fact, a country not far from them who has a lot to lose with them having any kind of civilized life outside of just Iran. Oddly enough, that same country has actually killed MORE innocent civilians in just this past year alone then Iran. Yet they're NOT a terrorist state. And yet you have no issue with them murdering innocent children. And I don't want to hear anyone say this has nothing to do with Israel because it has EVERYTHING to do with Israel. Just look at our own policy makers scrambling to derail this treaty in who's favor, oh ya, Israel. Why not let people just live and let live? Enough sabor rattling, enough of the stupid bullshit senators and congressman running to the aid of Israel. Start worrying about our own country for a change. Israel will be alright.

BS44325

It isn't saber rattling to insist upon the protection of shipping lanes. This concerns the Obama administration and should concern all of you as well.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/irans-dire-strait-117566.html?utm_content=buffer85571&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Halifax2TheMax

Few experts expect Iran to cross Obama’s red line by shutting the strait — an act that could cause global economic mayhem. Nearly 20 percent of the world’s oil supplies pass through the waterway, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, which calls it “the world’s most important oil transit chokepoint.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/irans-dire-strait-117566.html#ixzz3ZD01d5yf

No, but everything you've raised to illustrate the threat that Iran is, actually points to how they are in fact the weaker adversary here and any action they were to take would ultimately work in their least interest. If they really wanted to close the Straight of Hormuz, they could have done it already and easily so. They're not going to do it. Enough with the scare tactics already.

Drowned Out

Almost makes me wonder if SA driving oil prices down was predictive of such a move...I know, I know....tinfoil.

BS44325

Drowned Out said:

Almost makes me wonder if SA driving oil prices down was predictive of such a move...I know, I know....tinfoil.

I don't think that's so tinfoil at all.

Drowned Out

BS44325 said:

Drowned Out said:

Almost makes me wonder if SA driving oil prices down was predictive of such a move...I know, I know....tinfoil.

I don't think that's so tinfoil at all.

Well....I agree with H2tM that shutting down the straight would be a desperate measure. Disruption of shipping lanes in the straight has been the go-to fear mongering claim in the region forever.... I don't think they're anywhere near doing that at this point. But things change quickly...the tinfoil comes into play in wondering if SA and the US know something we don't - something that will make Iran desperate in a hurry.

BS44325

Drowned Out said:

BS44325 said:

Drowned Out said:

Almost makes me wonder if SA driving oil prices down was predictive of such a move...I know, I know....tinfoil.

I don't think that's so tinfoil at all.

Well....I agree with H2tM that shutting down the straight would be a desperate measure. Disruption of shipping lanes in the straight has been the go-to fear mongering claim in the region forever.... I don't think they're anywhere near doing that at this point. But things change quickly...the tinfoil comes into play in wondering if SA and the US know something we don't - something that will make Iran desperate in a hurry.

SA is definitely driving down oil prices to hurt Iran but the bigger question is whether the US and SA are even on the same page anymore?

Halifax2TheMax

I don't think the Obama admin. Or the Iranians are going to do anything to scuttle the deal. Even the senate seems to be waking up and realizing diplomacy is better than going to war. Tom Cotton, on the other hand, is still an idiot.

BS44325

Hezbollah sees this deal as I see it

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/how-hezbollah-sees-iran-nuclear-deal-we-win-you-lose_940154.html?nopager=1

rgambs

BS44325 said:

Hezbollah sees this deal as I see it

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/how-hezbollah-sees-iran-nuclear-deal-we-win-you-lose_940154.html?nopager=1

It's not surprising that a group that thrives on conflict sees the deal this way.

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

Hezbollah sees this deal as I see it

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/how-hezbollah-sees-iran-nuclear-deal-we-win-you-lose_940154.html?nopager=1

Its all okay, the Canadian military is going to take the lead and save us all.

So, lets see what you've articulated thus far: Iran is the bogeyman of the region and world, one of the three Axis' of Evil, sanctions on Iran will work and prevent them from getting the bomb but sanctions on Israel, or boycotts, won't work against Israel (posted in the Meanwhile in Israel thread), Iran is seizing ship(s) in the Persian Gulf and must be stopped and that the only way to solve this "problem" is with armed conflict with Iran. Here's what I know, Obama hasn't and won't take military action against Iran off the table, diplomacy and negotiations and the details of the nuclear deal are better than going to war with Iran, that sanctions, in this case, haven't and won't work and that a link to a blog from the Weekly Standard is hardly evidence that, "the West has been vanquished." I also know that the appearance of strength is the name of the game here and Obama won't be sucked in. Unlike our previous president. Someone made a reference in a previous post that this conflict is like watching a gorilla and a chimp beat their chests at one another. I would say its more like a gorilla and a spider monkey.

Israel is a nuclear power, hasn't signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, shared nuclear weapons technology with South Africa and also committed war crimes in Gaza. Who is the bigger threat to peace and stability in the region and the world? Israel or Palestine? Or Iran?

BS44325

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Hezbollah sees this deal as I see it

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/how-hezbollah-sees-iran-nuclear-deal-we-win-you-lose_940154.html?nopager=1

Its all okay, the Canadian military is going to take the lead and save us all.

So, lets see what you've articulated thus far: Iran is the bogeyman of the region and world, one of the three Axis' of Evil, sanctions on Iran will work and prevent them from getting the bomb but sanctions on Israel, or boycotts, won't work against Israel (posted in the Meanwhile in Israel thread), Iran is seizing ship(s) in the Persian Gulf and must be stopped and that the only way to solve this "problem" is with armed conflict with Iran. Here's what I know, Obama hasn't and won't take military action against Iran off the table, diplomacy and negotiations and the details of the nuclear deal are better than going to war with Iran, that sanctions, in this case, haven't and won't work and that a link to a blog from the Weekly Standard is hardly evidence that, "the West has been vanquished." I also know that the appearance of strength is the name of the game here and Obama won't be sucked in. Unlike our previous president. Someone made a reference in a previous post that this conflict is like watching a gorilla and a chimp beat their chests at one another. I would say its more like a gorilla and a spider monkey.

Israel is a nuclear power, hasn't signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, shared nuclear weapons technology with South Africa and also committed war crimes in Gaza. Who is the bigger threat to peace and stability in the region and the world? Israel or Palestine? Or Iran?

If you have to ask then you're an idiot

Halifax2TheMax

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Hezbollah sees this deal as I see it

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/how-hezbollah-sees-iran-nuclear-deal-we-win-you-lose_940154.html?nopager=1

Its all okay, the Canadian military is going to take the lead and save us all.

So, lets see what you've articulated thus far: Iran is the bogeyman of the region and world, one of the three Axis' of Evil, sanctions on Iran will work and prevent them from getting the bomb but sanctions on Israel, or boycotts, won't work against Israel (posted in the Meanwhile in Israel thread), Iran is seizing ship(s) in the Persian Gulf and must be stopped and that the only way to solve this "problem" is with armed conflict with Iran. Here's what I know, Obama hasn't and won't take military action against Iran off the table, diplomacy and negotiations and the details of the nuclear deal are better than going to war with Iran, that sanctions, in this case, haven't and won't work and that a link to a blog from the Weekly Standard is hardly evidence that, "the West has been vanquished." I also know that the appearance of strength is the name of the game here and Obama won't be sucked in. Unlike our previous president. Someone made a reference in a previous post that this conflict is like watching a gorilla and a chimp beat their chests at one another. I would say its more like a gorilla and a spider monkey.

Israel is a nuclear power, hasn't signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, shared nuclear weapons technology with South Africa and also committed war crimes in Gaza. Who is the bigger threat to peace and stability in the region and the world? Israel or Palestine? Or Iran?

If you have to ask then you're an idiot

Really? Sorry, but I don't count the Weekly Standard blog as a justification for my views.

BS44325

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Hezbollah sees this deal as I see it

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/how-hezbollah-sees-iran-nuclear-deal-we-win-you-lose_940154.html?nopager=1

Its all okay, the Canadian military is going to take the lead and save us all.

So, lets see what you've articulated thus far: Iran is the bogeyman of the region and world, one of the three Axis' of Evil, sanctions on Iran will work and prevent them from getting the bomb but sanctions on Israel, or boycotts, won't work against Israel (posted in the Meanwhile in Israel thread), Iran is seizing ship(s) in the Persian Gulf and must be stopped and that the only way to solve this "problem" is with armed conflict with Iran. Here's what I know, Obama hasn't and won't take military action against Iran off the table, diplomacy and negotiations and the details of the nuclear deal are better than going to war with Iran, that sanctions, in this case, haven't and won't work and that a link to a blog from the Weekly Standard is hardly evidence that, "the West has been vanquished." I also know that the appearance of strength is the name of the game here and Obama won't be sucked in. Unlike our previous president. Someone made a reference in a previous post that this conflict is like watching a gorilla and a chimp beat their chests at one another. I would say its more like a gorilla and a spider monkey.

Israel is a nuclear power, hasn't signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, shared nuclear weapons technology with South Africa and also committed war crimes in Gaza. Who is the bigger threat to peace and stability in the region and the world? Israel or Palestine? Or Iran?

If you have to ask then you're an idiot

Really? Sorry, but I don't count the Weekly Standard blog as a justification for my views.

You are mistaking "justification" with "confirmation".

Halifax2TheMax

So, you admit that you're a war monger? Truth be told.

BS44325

Halifax2TheMax said:

So, you admit that you're a war monger? Truth be told.

How so?

badbrains

BS44325 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

BS44325 said:

Hezbollah sees this deal as I see it

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/how-hezbollah-sees-iran-nuclear-deal-we-win-you-lose_940154.html?nopager=1

Its all okay, the Canadian military is going to take the lead and save us all.

So, lets see what you've articulated thus far: Iran is the bogeyman of the region and world, one of the three Axis' of Evil, sanctions on Iran will work and prevent them from getting the bomb but sanctions on Israel, or boycotts, won't work against Israel (posted in the Meanwhile in Israel thread), Iran is seizing ship(s) in the Persian Gulf and must be stopped and that the only way to solve this "problem" is with armed conflict with Iran. Here's what I know, Obama hasn't and won't take military action against Iran off the table, diplomacy and negotiations and the details of the nuclear deal are better than going to war with Iran, that sanctions, in this case, haven't and won't work and that a link to a blog from the Weekly Standard is hardly evidence that, "the West has been vanquished." I also know that the appearance of strength is the name of the game here and Obama won't be sucked in. Unlike our previous president. Someone made a reference in a previous post that this conflict is like watching a gorilla and a chimp beat their chests at one another. I would say its more like a gorilla and a spider monkey.

Israel is a nuclear power, hasn't signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, shared nuclear weapons technology with South Africa and also committed war crimes in Gaza. Who is the bigger threat to peace and stability in the region and the world? Israel or Palestine? Or Iran?

If you have to ask then you're an idiot

You should seriously look in the mirror when making this statement.