Iran nuclear deal

IrishTrajan

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33518524

Iran's foreign minister called the agreement "historic", saying it opened a "new chapter of hope".
It reportedly gives UN nuclear inspectors extensive but not automatic access to sites within Iran.
Negotiations between Iran and six world powers - the US, UK, France, China and Russia plus Germany - began in 2006.
The so-called P5+1 - want Iran to scale back its sensitive nuclear activities to ensure that it cannot build a nuclear weapon.
Iran, which wants crippling international sanctions lifted, has always insisted that its nuclear work is peaceful.

A compromise over the inspection of sites within Iran, the Associated Press quotes a diplomat as saying - UN inspectors would be allowed to monitor military sites but Iran could challenge requests for access
Iran has accepted that sanctions could be restored in 65 days if it violates the deal, Reuters cited diplomats as saying
A UN arms embargo and missile sanctions would remain in place for five and eight years respectively, Reuters reports
Sanctions in areas including oil and gas trading, financial transactions, aviation and shipping will be lifted and billions of dollars of Iranian assets unfrozen, Iranian media report

One can only hope Congress doesn't crap the bed and blow the deal out of the water as soon as they can.

So what do you think, a historic moment, or just some breathing space until the sanctions are ramped up by Congress again?

Dohnjoe

It's a good deal. Once the sanctions lift and the Iranians start to actually see the economic improvement (and barring any major international incidents) it stands a good chance of holding.

The Republicans will raise their usual bluster and the Israeli's their rhetoric

Nody

IrishTrajan wrote: »

One can only hope Congress doesn't crap the bed and blow the deal out of the water as soon as they can.

So what do you think, a historic moment, or just some breathing space until the sanctions are ramped up by Congress again?

Seeing how the Israel state has already said they'll do anything to stop the deal and the American Congress being in bed with the Israel state in general it's going to be a hard sale. I can see it go through on the basis of stopping nuclear weapons for a enemy of Israel or similar basis though (then again how well did that work out with NK?).

Gringo180

World powers reach an agreement over Iran's nuclear programme today I see.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jul/14/iran-nuclear-talks-deal-historic-vienna-live-updates


This is a huge step and in the right direction for stability in the middle east in my opinion, this deal will allow Iran to become a regional power again which is badly needed in the Arab world which is rife with civil war.

Madd Finn

Nody wrote: »

Seeing how the Israel state has already said they'll do anything to stop the deal and the American Congress being in bed with the Israel state in general it's going to be a hard sale.

Give the Americans some credit. They will blow a lot of hot air about being Israel's "best friend" but they know damn well that in international politics, nobody has any friends; only their own interests.

When push comes to shove, an American president of any party will always be first and foremost an American president. He (or she) will do what is in America's best interests, as they see it.

Yes, there are some genuine Israeli supporters in the Congress but many of the most vociferous anti-Arab pro-Israel voices are raised only as an excuse to berate domestic rivals in the US. The Bible-belt Republicans spout pro-Israeli hysteria not so much to please Netanyahu as to bash Obama.

So it is still primarily in America's interests to support a loyal and highly dependent ally like Israel in the Middle East.
It's also in America's interests to keep Iran close. Which is what she's doing and if the Israelis don't like it: tough.

If ever there's any doubt about who is the dog and who the tail, such delusions are quickly dispelled.

SeanW

As long as any deal:

1. Confirms the right of Iran or any NPT compliant country to generate nuclear electricity and to hold/develop technologies for this purpose.
2. Benefits the Iranian people.
3. Leaves no reasonable fear of Iranians developing nuclear weapons.

It would have my support FWIW.

KingBrian2

Madd Finn wrote: »

Give the Americans some credit. They will blow a lot of hot air about being Israel's "best friend" but they know damn well that in international politics, nobody has any friends; only their own interests.

When push comes to shove, an American president of any party will always be first and foremost an American president. He (or she) will do what is in America's best interests, as they see it.

Yes, there are some genuine Israeli supporters in the Congress but many of the most vociferous anti-Arab pro-Israel voices are raised only as an excuse to berate domestic rivals in the US. The Bible-belt Republicans spout pro-Israeli hysteria not so much to please Netanyahu as to bash Obama.

So it is still primarily in America's interests to support a loyal and highly dependent ally like Israel in the Middle East.
It's also in America's interests to keep Iran close. Which is what she's doing and if the Israelis don't like it: tough.

If ever there's any doubt about who is the dog and who the tail, such delusions are quickly dispelled.

Time to open discussions on ending the proxy war in Syria by bringing the two side to the table. Iran can work with Syria and Europe and America should withdraw support from the terrorists operating in border regions.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Europe and America should withdraw support from the terrorists operating in border regions.

And that support is?

And the Syrian war has 4 sides, as I'm sure you are aware.

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

And that support is?

And the Syrian war has 4 sides, as I'm sure you are aware.

The CIA, SAS are training anti gvt forces in Turkey and the Jordan Valley. even President Hollande backs the Saudi approach to the conflict. People keep saying their needs to be a political solution yet the entire area from Turkey to Basra has been weaponized.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The CIA, SAS are training anti gvt forces in Turkey and the Jordan Valley. even President Hollande backs the Saudi approach to the conflict. People keep saying their needs to be a political solution yet the entire area from Turkey to Basra has been weaponized.

Curious angle to take....

Who you refer to terrorists are the secular, democratic, pluralist 'Syrian Nationalist Coalition'.... Who are seen by the EU (And France) as well as much of the rest of the world as the legitimate government of Syria!

And you conversely consider ISIS as legitimate in its governorship by contrast?
(And not terrorists apparently!)

Okay....
The internationally recognised Syrian democrats = Terrorists....
ISIS = Should be brought to the table to negotiate

(And the Kurds left whistling in the breeze)

Didn't think I'd see the day when an ISIS advocate steps up.

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Curious angle to take....

Who you refer to terrorists are the secular, democratic, pluralist 'Syrian Nationalist Coalition'.... Who are seen by the EU (And France) as well as much of the rest of the world as the legitimate government of Syria!

And you conversely consider ISIS as legitimate in its governorship by

Absolutely wrong the Syrian gvt is the only legitimate gvt. Their is no other. ISIS is a perversion, Don't get me started on the so call SNC. The people of Syria already have an army that protects them and a civil service that runs the administration. The failure to see this is the reason the crisis has grown. Pretend argument about supporting the secular forces is a misnomer.

BoJack Horseman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Absolutely wrong the Syrian gvt is the only legitimate gvt.

One just has to look at their excellent polling record.

Almost as popular in general elections as the Kims in North Korea!

After that, why read further.

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

One just has to look at their excellent polling record.

Almost as popular in general elections as the Kims in North Korea!

After that, why read further.

Syria is a fragile state with the Russians and Iranians backing them up. Two very important powers. The Syrian army has been doing the laborious job of clearing out the gangsters occupying the shattered cities under ISIS control. They have a proven track record unlike other players in the region. The Egyptians recognise the importance of clamping down on the MB.

IrishTrajan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Absolutely wrong the Syrian gvt is the only legitimate gvt. Their is no other. ISIS is a perversion, Don't get me started on the so call SNC. The people of Syria already have an army that protects them and a civil service that runs the administration. The failure to see this is the reason the crisis has grown. Pretend argument about supporting the secular forces is a misnomer.

I would hardly call the rule of Bashar or Hafez legitimate. They were (and are) brutally repressive (you can't be in a group of 5 or more men or you can be arrested)... Bashar has started pushing some reforms, but very few have been actually come about.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Time to open discussions on ending the proxy war in Syria by bringing the two side to the table. Iran can work with Syria and Europe and America should withdraw support from the terrorists operating in border regions.

It's not Europe or the US pouring fuel on the fire, it's the Turks, Pakistanis, Qataris and Saudis. Heck even Israel is more interested in keeping the fighting going.


That said, I actually think Bashar is the best choice. Better a devil we know than a devil we don't. But I don't think the Sunnis will agree much.

KingBrian2

IrishTrajan wrote: »

I would hardly call the rule of Bashar or Hafez legitimate. They were (and are) brutally repressive (you can't be in a group of 5 or more men or you can be arrested)... Bashar has started pushing some reforms, but very few have been actually come about.



It's not Europe or the US pouring fuel on the fire, it's the Turks, Pakistanis, Qataris and Saudis. Heck even Israel is more interested in keeping the fighting going.


That said, I actually think Bashar is the best choice. Better a devil we know than a devil we don't. But I don't think the Sunnis will agree much.

At least you acknowledge who is contributing the most to the turmoil and it is not the Syrian forces.

IrishTrajan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Syria is a fragile state with the Russians and Iranians backing them up. Two very important powers. The Syrian army has been doing the laborious job of clearing out the gangsters occupying the shattered cities under ISIS control. They have a proven track record unlike other players in the region. The Egyptians recognise the importance of clamping down on the MB.

Russia doesn't particularly care, there were leaked reports of them accepting Assad's removal from power if his family were given asylum in Yemen (though that's a long shot now, I think). Iran is the only real Syria has in this fight, and that is only to serve their own purposes to keep supply lines open to Hezbollah/Hamas.

And the Syrian Army is desperate, I don't think they'll be able to win this war themselves.

KingBrian2

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Russia doesn't particularly care, there were leaked reports of them accepting Assad's removal from power if his family were given asylum in Yemen (though that's a long shot now, I think). Iran is the only real Syria has in this fight, and that is only to serve their own purposes to keep supply lines open to Hezbollah/Hamas.

And the Syrian Army is desperate, I don't think they'll be able to win this war themselves.

The entire region needs Iran with its large presence in the area to turn the tide against ISIS. The battle for Tikrit was a success thanks to the Shi'ite forces. Their has already been a heavy price in blood and sovereignty in forgetting the ties that bind Iraq, Iran & Syria together.

KingBrian2

Does today's deal mean that regime change is now off the table when it comes to dealing with gvts the UN council don't like cooperating with?

johnnyskeleton

Mod: Threads merged, happy hunting

jank

Gringo180 wrote: »

World powers reach an agreement over Iran's nuclear programme today I see.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jul/14/iran-nuclear-talks-deal-historic-vienna-live-updates


This is a huge step and in the right direction for stability in the middle east in my opinion, this deal will allow Iran to become a regional power again which is badly needed in the Arab world which is rife with civil war.

How will this deal stabilise the Middle East in any way?

IrishTrajan

jank wrote: »

How will this deal stabilise the Middle East in any way?

Well, it won't be the West having to deal with the rivalries and fighting directly.

Gringo180

jank wrote: »

How will this deal stabilise the Middle East in any way?

As I have already stated, Iran will become a regional super power again when sanctions lift, which will take a lot of pressure off the west to police the region. The Iranians have already sacrificed thousands of there revolutionary guard to fight against ISIS in Iraq and with more funds available to them they will be able to do a better job to eradicate them.

BoJack Horseman

Gringo180 wrote: »

The Iranians have already sacrificed thousands of there revolutionary guard to fight against ISIS

Link to death toll stat?
The Iranians themselves put their death toll at 11.

Nodin

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Link to death toll stat?
The Iranians themselves put their death toll at 11.

Well it may be a case of 'no Russians in Ukraine', if you follow.

BoJack Horseman

Nodin wrote: »

Well it may be a case of 'no Russians in Ukraine', if you follow.

No, the Iranians losses were modest.

Looking at the 2nd battle of Tikrit, which was a big one, the Iranians provided the ISR & command abilities, as well as as the missile artillery & other weapons..... The nitty-gritty was done by the Shia militias.

There are thousands there for sure, but their role isn't front line fighting.
There are tens of thousands of militia to do that.

KingBrian2

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

No, the Iranians losses were modest.

Looking at the 2nd battle of Tikrit, which was a big one, the Iranians provided the ISR & command abilities, as well as as the missile artillery & other weapons..... The nitty-gritty was done by the Shia militias.

There are thousands there for sure, but their role isn't front line fighting.
There are tens of thousands of militia to do that.

Syria, Iraq and Iran recently formed a common military strategy to launch counter attacks against ISIS, with sanctions down they can proceed to retake lawless territory. Is not good to make friends out of foes.

Gringo180

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Link to death toll stat?
The Iranians themselves put their death toll at 11.

Sorry I meant sent not sacrificed. My apologies.

jank

Gringo180 wrote: »

As I have already stated, Iran will become a regional super power again when sanctions lift, which will take a lot of pressure off the west to police the region. The Iranians have already sacrificed thousands of there revolutionary guard to fight against ISIS in Iraq and with more funds available to them they will be able to do a better job to eradicate them.

Precisely my point. Now that the west and the US in particular are happy to disengage from the region and leave it for others to sort out, Iran and Saudi will now be looking to exert more influence in other countries of a similar make of their own. If anything the west was putting a lid on violence that is only going to get worse once it is clear Iran and Saudi have free reign.

So again, there is absolutely zero evidence that this deal will provide a more stable and secure middle east.

BoJack Horseman

jank wrote: »

Precisely my point. Now that the west and the US in particular are happy to disengage from the region and leave it for others to sort out, Iran and Saudi will now be looking to exert more influence in other countries of a similar make of their own. If anything the west was putting a lid on violence that is only going to get worse once it is clear Iran and Saudi have free reign.

So again, there is absolutely zero evidence that this deal will provide a more stable and secure middle east.

Yup... the existing flashpoints will become proxy battles.

I imagine KSA & Iran will have a ' take two' in Bahrain sometime in the next 5+ years.

Though I don't envisage direct conflict.... Not for a long time at least.

AbusesToilets

Iran and Saudi have been at war for decades through proxies,

FreudianSlippers

jank wrote: »

Precisely my point. Now that the west and the US in particular are happy to disengage from the region and leave it for others to sort out, Iran and Saudi will now be looking to exert more influence in other countries of a similar make of their own. If anything the west was putting a lid on violence that is only going to get worse once it is clear Iran and Saudi have free reign.

So again, there is absolutely zero evidence that this deal will provide a more stable and secure middle east.

Well, part of that is as a result of the fact that the US has abjectly failed and, in fact, made the situation worse in the Middle East through interventionist policy. They are going back to the 70s/80s (and countless times before and since) and sticking with the devil they know (or believe they have a better chance of controlling).

They're maybe not far off being wrong with this. Iran and Saudi could keep the area in check and quash threats to themselves like ISIS, whilst being reliant enough on both the West for resources as well as lifestyle that they are ultimately controllable through sanctions if necessary.

I'm failing to see why the West give a **** if Middle Eastern leaders are dictators and barbaric; history is showing that governing the Middle East by fear and force is the only way it has worked!

Junkyard Tom

jank wrote: »

there is absolutely zero evidence that this deal will provide a more stable and secure middle east.

What a bizarre and redundant statement. How can anyone provide evidence for a future that hasn't yet happened?

jank

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What a bizarre and redundant statement. How can anyone provide evidence for a future that hasn't yet happened?

Ask gringo who stated it as fact....

Junkyard Tom

jank wrote: »

Ask gringo who stated it as fact....

I asked you a question, here it is again.

How can anyone provide evidence for a future that hasn't yet happened?

jank

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I asked you a question, here it is again.

How can anyone provide evidence for a future that hasn't yet happened?

My point exactly, how can someone state that this deal guarantees a safer and more peaceful middle east? It doesn't.

Junkyard Tom

jank wrote: »

My point exactly

No it isn't. You enthusiastically agreed with Gringo180's assertion that:

Gringo180 wrote: »

Iran will become a regional super power

jank wrote: »

Precisely my point.

So you agree wholeheartedly that Iran will become a super-power (no evidence for a future yet to happen) and then highlight that there is 'zero' evidence for a future you presumably disagree with?

How bizarre. Or should I say 'how predictable'.

jank

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

No it isn't. You enthusiastically agreed with Gringo180's assertion that:



So you agree wholeheartedly that Iran will become a super-power (no evidence for a future yet to happen) and then highlight that there is 'zero' evidence for a future you presumably disagree with?

How bizarre. Or should I say 'how predictable'.

Gringos point was that this deal will secure a more stable and peaceful Middle East, which is wishful thinking at best and has no basis in evidence.

However lifting sanctions against Iran will empower them and embolden them for better or worse to be a more dominant player in the region.

Of course if you think that lifting of economic sanctions will have no output of change at all on Iran and its domestic and foreign policy which I think you are saying then say it.

What is your opinion on the matter on hand or are you satisfied in word play and blind alleys?

Gringo180

jank wrote: »

Ask gringo who stated it as fact....

Gringo180 wrote: »

World powers reach an agreement over Iran's nuclear programme today I see.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jul/14/iran-nuclear-talks-deal-historic-vienna-live-updates


This is a huge step and in the right direction for stability in the middle east in my opinion, this deal will allow Iran to become a regional power again which is badly needed in the Arab world which is rife with civil war.

I never stated it as fact, as always anything I post are my opinion.


Anyway, I honestly do not see how anybody could call this agreement a bad deal. Instead of war rhetoric and posturing to the Iranians the west has decided to engage with them through diplomacy and Tehran has agreed to limit there nuclear stock pile and allow inspectors in on request. How is this a bad thing?

BoJack Horseman

Gringo180 wrote: »

allow inspectors in on request.

Pending a 24 day waiting period on any facility the Ayatollah designates 'military'.

And only of facilities that are known.
No full disclosure.

Gringo180

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Pending a 24 day waiting period on any facility the Ayatollah designates 'military'.

And only of facilities that are known.
No full disclosure.

Would you rather alienate the Iranians or negotiate with them? They could be a good ally to have in the region which is rife with civil war and extremist groups like ISIS. There a lot better than the Saudi's who fuel extremism in the middle east.

BoJack Horseman

Gringo180 wrote: »

Would you rather alienate the Iranians or negotiate with them?

Hobson's choice, but good try.
.... And they already are alienated!

There a lot better than the Saudi's

Baffling that someone can hold one form of fundamentalist Islamic tyrrany over another, slightly different form of fundamentalist Islamic tyranny!

Who does that?

who fuel extremism in the middle east.

Ehhhh...... yeah..... the cuddly bunny Ayatollah wouldn't do that!

See above.

Gringo180

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Hobson's choice, but good try.
.... And they already are alienated!


Baffling that someone can hold one form of fundamentalist Islamic tyrrany over another, slightly different form of fundamentalist Islamic tyranny!

Who does that?


Ehhhh...... yeah..... the cuddly bunny Ayatollah wouldn't do that!

See above.

Yes because funding groups that are being occupied and oppressed is on the same level as funding groups that want a world wide caliphate :rolleyes:

Lets get back on topic.

This deal lifts economic sanctions in Tehran so I would say they are no longer alienated.

Junkyard Tom

jank wrote: »

However lifting sanctions against Iran will empower them and embolden them for better or worse to be a more dominant player in the region.

Maybe, maybe not.

What is your opinion on the matter

I believe the US had little choice but to go for a deal, which I think they've done well out of, for two reasons.

1. The Israeli attack on Lebanon showed what a US attack on Iran might look like. The US could flatten Iran from the air and perhaps disrupt the Iranian nuclear programme for a few years but would meet stiff resistance on the ground and probably suffer huge losses. That's before we consider the US public and many top brass in the Pentagon were steadfastly against an attack.

2. Currently the US can impose sanctions unilaterally and choke an economy. In the not-too-distant future the US's ability to throttle countries could well be limited by rising economic power in east Asia. The AIIB has the potential to be a game changer. The US could incorporate Iran into its sphere of influence and open it up for western corporations or risk 'losing' it to China/India down the line.

Having said the above the only thing predictable about the future is that it is unpredictable. If you'd have told people in the mid 80's that in less than 15 years Capitalist Russia would be flying Rich Americans into space as tourists, people would have laughed at you.

IrishTrajan

Gringo180 wrote: »

Would you rather alienate the Iranians or negotiate with them? They could be a good ally to have in the region which is rife with civil war and extremist groups like ISIS. There a lot better than the Saudi's who fuel extremism in the middle east.

The Saudis just arrested like 400 ISIS members, no? Yes the Saudis can be blamed for the continued funding of extremist groups, but they're not doing it solely to create an extreme place. They're doing it because Sunni extremists hate the Shia more than they hate Wahhabi Sunnis. The Saudis are trying to wield a sword without a handle.

If you think Iran is any better than the KSA, you'd be wrong. Both of them are horrible, repressive regimes with regional ambitions and will target civilians if it gets them what they want.

Junkyard Tom

IrishTrajan wrote: »

Both of them are horrible, repressive regimes with regional ambitions and will target civilians if it gets them what they want.

One wonders how Iran would have fared had its elected government not been subject to a coup at the hands of US/British interests.

AbusesToilets

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

One wonders how Iran would have fared had its elected government not been subject to a coup at the hands of US/British interests.

Certainly better off than under the current theocracy but it had huge wealth division between the urban and rural areas. The various social programs that the Shah pushed through led to serious dissent and opposition from the religious groups at the time and laid the ground work for Khomeini's rise to power. Mossadeq was also partial to authoritarian actions himself, certainly towards the end of his time in power.

Junkyard Tom

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The various social programs that the Shah pushed through led to serious dissent and opposition from the religious groups at the time and laid the ground work for Khomeini's rise to power.

So what you're saying is, forget that the democratically elected Mossadeq was overthrown and focus on religious groups opposing an installed stooge? Maybe the religious groups would have shut up if they'd had to face democratic realities of the Iranian people?

jank

Gringo180 wrote: »

Anyway, I honestly do not see how anybody could call this agreement a bad deal. Instead of war rhetoric and posturing to the Iranians the west has decided to engage with them through diplomacy and Tehran has agreed to limit there nuclear stock pile and allow inspectors in on request. How is this a bad thing?

For Iran its a good deal no doubt, for the rest of the middle east, not so sure. The Suadi's are most unhappy about it and there has been already talk of a new arms race as its clear that the US is disengaging from the region. Also, it does nothing to stop Iran getting the bomb eventually.

When Jimmy Carter is on record last month saying that American status and influence in the region and world is deteriorating then you know how serious the situation is. Some anti-western types would jump for joy at this prospect however, I say careful what you wish for as the balkanisation of the middle east is ever more closer.

jank

Gringo180 wrote: »

There a lot better than the Saudi's who fuel extremism in the middle east.

Pot & Kettle come to mind. They sponsor Hamas and Hezbollah among others. Never-mind that islamofascism has its origin in the Iranian revolution of 1979. Sometimes people cannot help themselves with their anti-american stance, and portray Iran as some poor victim of US foreign policy who are totally blameless for their actions e.g. executing 3,000 people for the crime of being gay. Sure, officially there are no gay people in Iran, right?

Saudi and Iran are two sides of the same coin, don't make the mistake that one is inherently evil cause the US backed them and the other is inherently better or good because they have been traditional enemy of the US for 4 decades.

At least people are starting to recognise the true make up of power and conflict in the middle east, its not the US or the West or even Israel. Its the 1000 year old Sunni vs Shia sectarian conflict that will probably be raging for another 1000 years.

jank

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not.

.

A very decisive viewpoint! :rolleyes:

Again, reiterating the main point I initially made, was that people who think that this deal will herald some kind of new peaceful era for the Middle East are in for a big shock. These people generally think that all the ills of the region are purely because of Western intervention. Take you that intervention, you will have an organic magical peaceful process emerge from it. That is an utterly naive view point as we will see in the coming years that dismisses all ethnic, tribal and religious divisions that are centuries old in the region.

IrishTrajan

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

One wonders how Iran would have fared had its elected government not been subject to a coup at the hands of US/British interests.

Probably because its a theocracy and the "elected Government" has no real power?