Iran deal reached

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,540
8,069
136
Any real deal at this point isn't too bad.

You're just an active well know Obama hater to begin with.

He could shit gold and turn blue and be Dr. Manhattan incarnate and you would still hate him.

This may not reflect on M1980 in any way, but your post reminds me of something I heard-but-forgot-where and it went some thing like: "The better your perceived nemesis does, the more you hate him for it." ;)
 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
15,038
10,542
136
I fully support making a deal, lifting sanctions, and eventually allowing Iran to prove themselves liars to the entire world. Once that happens nobody will trust Iran, except Jhhnn, and maybe nickqt. They will continue to make apologies forever, regardless of what Iran does.

I'm apprehensive about Iran but I still like this deal for the US. Israel isn't our state so why should we care about them. Besides Obama did exactly what he said he would do in the 2008 debates.. engage with Iran and try to find a diplomatic solution over war. McCain was livid. But no flip flopping.. the American people are getting exactly what they voted for here.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
This may not reflect on M1980 in any way, but your post reminds me of something I heard-but-forgot-where and it went some thing like: "The better your perceived nemesis does, the more you hate him for it." ;)

I don't hate him, it's just a character trait on his part.
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,540
8,069
136
I don't hate him, it's just a character trait on his part.

Apologies are in order as I did not make myself clear about who I was referring to. I was, in an assumptive way, referring to Obama, his increasing amount of accomplishments and how the Repub politicians have been reacting to it.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
Apologies are in order as I did not make myself clear about who I was referring to. I was, in an assumptive way, referring to Obama, his increasing amount of accomplishments and how the Repub politicians have been reacting to it.


Thanks for clearing it up.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

I do that myself now and again.

I took your post the wrong way myself, was my bad.

shaka-sign-324x264.jpg
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,237
14,237
136
China isn't hurting in any way, US corporations have been moving manufacturing there for over a decade now.

Of course they are getting into bed with with everyone else now, I doubt any of the Chinese government are too worried about it.

The Russians are alligning a bit more of them in the area also.

What could go wrong.

Txebk5V.jpg

Even if none of the other countries pull out of the sanctions, I don't think that matters. Iran can wait out the sanctions long enough to make a nuke, and then the sanctions will go away. There's no logic in maintaining the status quo. They'll just get nukes sooner.
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Because the sanctions are hurting other nations like China and India who, unlike the US, did use to buy oil from Iran, and their resolve is weakening. If Iran doesn't cave to pressure from the sanctions long enough to develop nukes, at that point all sanctions go away because they become moot. Some countries may drop out even before that. Remember, sanctions from the US are not an issue for Iran because we didn't buy their oil or much of anything from them.

While there are risks to this deal, the risks of maintaining the status quo, which is maintaining the sanctions, are much higher. We're counting on a regime who is already going to lose some face with this deal to make even greater concessions when they know all they have to do is make a b-line to get nukes, at which point the sanctions will go away. If the hardliners in Iran, the people who hate the US the most and are most in favor of sponsoring terrorism, oppose this deal, that should be telling us something.

This deal is the least bad alternative, and it's a no brainer. If Iran gives up 70% of its centrifuges, it's physically impossible for this not to at least slow them down.

I don't honestly understand the opposition to this unless it is purely political. I would support this deal regardless of which party is in power.
Pretty much spot on. Only people complaining have a political axe to grind or are overly given to paranoid delusional histrionics.
 

Baasha

Golden Member
Jan 4, 2010
1,989
20
81
Estimates are that up to 90% of our population would die from a detonation in space just above the US. The resulting EMP blast would cut off supplies and result in immediate anarchy as store shelves emptied and communications failed.

Iran is "puny", a nuclear weapon is not. Enabling them by not ending them is certainly going to encourage further proliferation and nuclear arms races and brinksmanship in the future. Proliferation itself is dangerous, as more and more weapons fall into the hands of unstable regimes that are, themselves, more likely to fall to or support terrorists. Or believe in martyrdom to appease religious zealotry.

It's not a nice world out there, those aren't nice people, and they are granted a seat at the nuclear table. It could be the right move in this particular case, at this particular time... or it might not. The stakes are high, and anything short of the destruction of Iran and its nukes is a move that puts us all at risk.

A failure in today's policy does not mean we get to scold and mock a President. For those of us still alive, it means we'd be burying our children and our grandchildren.

Most of your fear subliminally comes from your support for Israel as a Jew. Iran having nukes will not enable them to fire an ICBM that will even remotely get anywhere near the air-space of the North American continent.

If nukes in the hands of 'baddies', especially anti-American and anti-Israeli people, is your real concern, the fear would be better directed at Pakistan which has about 100 nuclear warheads and growing.

After China gave the Pakistanis nuclear capability to counter India's nuclear deterrent, it was AQ Khan, a rogue Pakistani nuclear physicist who gave nuclear secrets to both Iran and North Korea.

The US intelligence community, assuming there are a few intelligent people in those 'think-tanks' etc., know that the apocalyptic threat of a nuclear winter lies solely with Pakistan and its dreaded ISI.

They have the capability to wipe Israel off of the map - their army is much more powerful than Iran's and they have been using terrorists as a proxy war machine since their inception in 1947.

Much of American paranoia about Iran's nuclear program is highly misdirected and frankly unwarranted. Iran will be crushed to a rubble by Israel if they try any monkey business in terms of direct attacks.

Pakistan will decimate Israel in an all out war. They have more than a 100 nukes, including hydrogen bombs, and the squawking by the morons in the Republican echo-chamber about "Iran, Iran, Iran" is just ridiculous.

If people really care about nuclear proliferation, the nations that have the largest arsenals, USA & Russia, should dismantle and destroy their nuclear stockpiles to a basic minimum to show leadership. At the minimum, the US should focus its efforts on securing Pakistani nukes and put an end to their nuclear program which is singularly hostile and given the fanaticism of their ISI generals, can lead only to utter and absolute destruction worldwide.
 

Indus

Lifer
May 11, 2002
15,038
10,542
136
Most of your fear subliminally comes from your support for Israel as a Jew. Iran having nukes will not enable them to fire an ICBM that will even remotely get anywhere near the air-space of the North American continent.

If nukes in the hands of 'baddies', especially anti-American and anti-Israeli people, is your real concern, the fear would be better directed at Pakistan which has about 100 nuclear warheads and growing.

After China gave the Pakistanis nuclear capability to counter India's nuclear deterrent, it was AQ Khan, a rogue Pakistani nuclear physicist who gave nuclear secrets to both Iran and North Korea.

The US intelligence community, assuming there are a few intelligent people in those 'think-tanks' etc., know that the apocalyptic threat of a nuclear winter lies solely with Pakistan and its dreaded ISI.

They have the capability to wipe Israel off of the map - their army is much more powerful than Iran's and they have been using terrorists as a proxy war machine since their inception in 1947.

Much of American paranoia about Iran's nuclear program is highly misdirected and frankly unwarranted. Iran will be crushed to a rubble by Israel if they try any monkey business in terms of direct attacks.

Pakistan will decimate Israel in an all out war. They have more than a 100 nukes, including hydrogen bombs, and the squawking by the morons in the Republican echo-chamber about "Iran, Iran, Iran" is just ridiculous.

If people really care about nuclear proliferation, the nations that have the largest arsenals, USA & Russia, should dismantle and destroy their nuclear stockpiles to a basic minimum to show leadership. At the minimum, the US should focus its efforts on securing Pakistani nukes and put an end to their nuclear program which is singularly hostile and given the fanaticism of their ISI generals, can lead only to utter and absolute destruction worldwide.

Very well said. Bush used to call Pakistan our key ally.. an ally that housed Osama Bin Laden. If that's an ally, do we need more enemies?
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
http://www.timesofisrael.com/16-reasons-nuke-deal-is-an-iranian-victory-and-a-western-catastrophe/

16 reasons nuke deal is an Iranian victory and a Western catastrophe

Op-Ed: Has Iran agreed to ‘anywhere, anytime’ inspections, an end to R&D on faster centrifuges, and the dismantling of its key nuclear sites? No, no, and no

ran’s President Hassan Rouhani on Tuesday unsurprisingly hailed the nuclear agreement struck with US-led world powers, and derided the “failed” efforts of the “warmongering Zionists.” His delight, Iran’s delight, is readily understandable.

The agreement legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program, allows it to retain core nuclear facilities, permits it to continue research in areas that will dramatically speed its breakout to the bomb should it choose to flout the deal, but also enables it to wait out those restrictions and proceed to become a nuclear threshold state with full international legitimacy. Here’s how.

1. Was the Iranian regime required, as a condition for this deal, to disclose the previous military dimensions of its nuclear program — to come clean on its violations — in order both to ensure effective inspections of all relevant facilities and to shatter the Iranian-dispelled myth that it has never breached its non-proliferation obligations? No. (This failure, arguably the original sin of the Western negotiating approach, is expertly detailed here by Emily B. Landau.) Rather than exposing Iran’s violations, the new deal solemnly asserts that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran has failed to honor “remains the cornerstone” of ongoing efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The deal provides for a mechanism “to address past and present issues of concern relating to its nuclear programme,” but Iran has managed to dodge such efforts for years, and the deal inspires little hope of change in that area, blithely anticipating “closing the issue” in the next few months.

2. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt all uranium enrichment, including thousands of centrifuges spinning at its main Natanz enrichment facility? No. The deal specifically legitimizes enrichment under certain eroding limitations.

3. Has the Iranian regime been required to shut down and dismantle its Arak heavy water reactor and plutonium production plant? No. It will convert, not dismantle the facility, under a highly complex process. Even if it honors this clause, its commitment to “no additional heavy water reactors or accumulation of heavy water in Iran” will expire after 15 years.

4. Has the Iranian regime been required to shut down and dismantle the underground uranium enrichment facility it built secretly at Fordow? No. (Convert, not dismantle.)

5. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt its ongoing missile development? No.

6. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt research and development of the faster centrifuges that will enable it to break out to the bomb far more rapidly than is currently the case? No. The deal specifically legitimizes ongoing R&D under certain eroding limitations. It specifically provides, for instance, that Iran will commence testing of the fast “IR-8 on single centrifuge machines and its intermediate cascades” as soon as the deal goes into effect, and will “commence testing of up to 30 IR-6 and IR-8 centrifuges after eight and a half years.”

7. Has the Iranian regime been required to submit to “anywhere, anytime” inspections of any and all facilities suspected of engaging in rogue nuclear-related activity? No. Instead, the deal describes at considerable length a very protracted process of advance warning and “consultation” to resolve concerns.

8. Has the international community established procedures setting out how it will respond to different classes of Iranian violations, to ensure that the international community can act with sufficient speed and efficiency to thwart a breakout to the bomb? No.

9. Has the Iranian regime been required to halt its arming, financing and training of the Hezbollah terrorist army in south Lebanon? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)

10. Has the Iranian regime been required to surrender for trial the members of its leadership placed on an Interpol watch list for their alleged involvement in the bombing, by a Hezbollah suicide bomber, of the AMIA Jewish community center offices in Buenos Aires in 1994 that resulted in the deaths of 85 people? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)

11. Has the Iranian regime undertaken to close its 80 estimated “cultural centers” in South America from which it allegedly fosters terrorist networks? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)


12. Has the Iranian leadership agreed to stop inciting hatred among its people against Israel and the United States and to stop its relentless calls for the annihilation of Israel? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)

13. Has the Iranian regime agreed to halt executions, currently running at an average of some three a day, the highest rate for 20 years? No. (This kind of non-nuclear issue was not discussed at the negotiations.)

14. Does the nuclear deal shatter the painstakingly constructed sanctions regime that forced Iran to the negotiating table? Yes.

15. Will the deal usher in a new era of global commercial interaction with Iran, reviving the Iranian economy and releasing financial resources that Iran will use to bolster its military forces and terrorist networks? Yes.

16. Does the nuclear deal further cement Iran’s repressive and ideologically rapacious regime in power? Yes.

No wonder Iran and its allies are celebrating. Nobody else should be.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally Posted by Baasha
Most of your fear subliminally comes from your support for Israel as a Jew. Iran having nukes will not enable them to fire an ICBM that will even remotely get anywhere near the air-space of the North American continent. -- that's not what the experts are saying!!! In fact iran has submarines already..hmm

If nukes in the hands of 'baddies', especially anti-American and anti-Israeli people, is your real concern, the fear would be better directed at Pakistan which has about 100 nuclear warheads and growing.-- not true because Pakistan has control over their people and Pakistan has a working relationship with Israel on some matters!

After China gave the Pakistanis nuclear capability to counter India's nuclear deterrent, it was AQ Khan, a rogue Pakistani nuclear physicist who gave nuclear secrets to both Iran and North Korea. -- soo???

The US intelligence community, assuming there are a few intelligent people in those 'think-tanks' etc., know that the apocalyptic threat of a nuclear winter lies solely with Pakistan and its dreaded ISI.--- you are sorely mistaken.....

They have the capability to wipe Israel off of the map - their army is much more powerful than Iran's and they have been using terrorists as a proxy war machine since their inception in 1947.

Much of American paranoia about Iran's nuclear program is highly misdirected and frankly unwarranted. Iran will be crushed to a rubble by Israel if they try any monkey business in terms of direct attacks.

Pakistan will decimate Israel in an all out war. They have more than a 100 nukes, including hydrogen bombs, and the squawking by the morons in the Republican echo-chamber about "Iran, Iran, Iran" is just ridiculous. -- that's news to me -- Only six countries—United States, Russia, United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, France and India—have conducted thermonuclear weapon tests. (Whether India has detonated a "true", multi-staged thermonuclear weapon is controversial.)[11] Thermonuclear weapons are considered much more difficult to successfully design and execute than primitive fission weapons. Almost all of the nuclear weapons deployed today use the thermonuclear design because it is more efficient.

If people really care about nuclear proliferation, the nations that have the largest arsenals, USA & Russia, should dismantle and destroy their nuclear stockpiles to a basic minimum to show leadership. At the minimum, the US should focus its efforts on securing Pakistani nukes and put an end to their nuclear program which is singularly hostile and given the fanaticism of their ISI generals, can lead only to utter and absolute destruction worldwide.
Again you desire to have people think you know whjat you are talkin g about -- You have no clue...
even enemies have ways of cooperating when it is in their best interest.....the word cooperation does not have anything to do with friendship!!
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Good luck with that. The sanctions worked because there was partnership.

As it stands.. Germany, France, China want cheap oil from Iran. Russia wants to sell missiles to Iran.

And India wants cheap oil too.. it may not seem like much but look at the population of India and then just think.. how much oil they're talking about.

Compared to these countries, US Santions on 10 or 11 or 200 mean nothing.

That's why the real options are:
1. status quo where they can make a bomb, nothing preventing them
2. the new kerry deal which guarantees a few years.
3. another war in which Americans deal with guerrila city warfare.

I personally would like to skip seeing on ABC's this week.. Here are the names of US military members who died this week in Iran.


Since your Mr option 2, you just don't want war today, you'd rather wait a few years until they get the bomb and then deal with the problem. So just by your standard this is a Chamberlain deal
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,162
136
The world has changed, incase no one has noticed.
Not only does this deal crack down on Iran building a bomb, the more important thing to remember is the sanctions will be lifted allowing the people of Iran to have a better life and a better future.
That is why the Iranians are celebrating in the streets.
Not so much over the bomb deal, but the lifting of the sanctions they have been living and suffering under.

And after the sanctions are lifted and Iranian lives improve towards normalcy, the Iran people will not want their government and leaders to screw this up.
If the people of Iran really want a better life and a return to a normal life, the people will hold their leaders accountable.

If the Iranian government and its leaders fail to hold up their part of the agreement, we will always have the option to bomb. And not only bomb, but put the sanctions back in place.
And the people of Iran will hold their leaders accountable for that screwup.

The people of Iran want this. They want their lives back. They want the sanctions lifted.
And once that happens, Iran will not want to mess that up, again.
Because if Iran fails on their part of the agreement, all the citizens of Iran know too well what that cost would be for them. And next time that pain will last much longer than ever before.
I would assume the Iranian people want to reenter the world society.
Not continue to be outcast.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
The world has changed, incase no one has noticed.
Not only does this deal crack down on Iran building a bomb,

No.

This deal does not stop Iran from building a bomb.

The say they wont for a few years, in exchange for that delay they get hundreds of billions of dollars.

After those few years they are free to build a bomb.
 

Murloc

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2008
5,382
65
91
Since your Mr option 2, you just don't want war today, you'd rather wait a few years until they get the bomb and then deal with the problem. So just by your standard this is a Chamberlain deal
you're assuming that Iran wants to conquer the US, but that's wrong.
So it's not a Chamberlain deal.

They are a shia dictatorship, it's self-limiting since they wouldn't be able to control sunni territories, just like americans or iraqi central gov weren't.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/16-reasons-nuke-deal-is-an-iranian-victory-and-a-western-catastrophe/

/cut

No wonder Iran and its allies are celebrating. Nobody else should be.
This is a deal about not making a bomb.

Other political issues aren't of concern in this negotiation. Those other issues were not the reason for the economic sanctions of the last few years.

They have the legal right to build ballistic missiles and nuclear reactors, just like e.g. China does.
 
Last edited:

Pneumothorax

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2002
1,181
23
81
The world has changed, incase no one has noticed.
Not only does this deal crack down on Iran building a bomb, the more important thing to remember is the sanctions will be lifted allowing the people of Iran to have a better life and a better future.
That is why the Iranians are celebrating in the streets.
Not so much over the bomb deal, but the lifting of the sanctions they have been living and suffering under.

And after the sanctions are lifted and Iranian lives improve towards normalcy, the Iran people will not want their government and leaders to screw this up.
If the people of Iran really want a better life and a return to a normal life, the people will hold their leaders accountable.

If the Iranian government and its leaders fail to hold up their part of the agreement, we will always have the option to bomb. And not only bomb, but put the sanctions back in place.
And the people of Iran will hold their leaders accountable for that screwup.

The people of Iran want this. They want their lives back. They want the sanctions lifted.
And once that happens, Iran will not want to mess that up, again.
Because if Iran fails on their part of the agreement, all the citizens of Iran know too well what that cost would be for them. And next time that pain will last much longer than ever before.
I would assume the Iranian people want to reenter the world society.
Not continue to be outcast.

As if the supreme leaders of Iran gives a f$&) what their population 'wants'. The true leaders of Iran haven't been ever elected since they had a monarchy. Also, how did their last 'revolt' end again?

What's crazy is that the Iranians stand to gain a shit ton more money from this deal than what Greece has been getting loaned to these days.
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,250
9,439
136
Yeh, go for the spin from the Neocon mothership, the Weekly Standard.

Pretend that there's not a lot of other things they can do with that stuff- you know, like OMFG! aluminum tubes. They're still building reactors, now as part of the agreement, so "industry computers" would be highly appropriate, don't you think? High speed cameras have a variety of uses, as does the rest of it.

But, be afraid, right? Be very, very afraid. Of something, anything that'll keep you off balance & less discerning as to the rest of the right wing bullshit that inundates us.

Do you now support sanctions, you want us to keep them up because they're working?
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
you're assuming that Iran wants to conquer the US, but that's wrong.
So it's not a Chamberlain deal.

They are a shia dictatorship, it's self-limiting since they wouldn't be able to control sunni territories, just like americans or iraqi central gov weren't.
.


Where did I say they want to conquer the US.

I said its a chamberlain deal. Its appeasement.

Please tell us what the USA and the world got in return for allowing Iran to get the bomb?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,250
9,439
136
Please tell us what the USA and the world got in return for allowing Iran to get the bomb?

They are going to lie and tell you some magic words have stopped the bomb.
They actually think Iran won't be nuclear in the future.
They are delusional.
 

Aristotelian

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,246
11
76
oh give me a break....a better quality of life for the Iranians?? You must have drank a lot of that Koolaid!!

1. I'm not an internet expert, as evidenced from the quality of my posts, which yours lack. I am an expert.

2. You are trolling, or simply being silly. I waited a while for you to address any of the points I made about Israel and you didn't.

So, 1+2 = I'm speaking with a rabid Zionist, especially when looking at your signature.

Let me be blunt - and it feels good to be able to write this unofficially and get away with it. Your rhetoric means nothing these days. It's over. The two state solution will be pushed for harder and harder (and NOT two states, two peoples - do you understand the difference?) and your days of sewing salt on land and annexing part of another country are in peril. How does it feel?

How does it feel to know that the world has changed, and just as Greeks perceiving Germans as Nazis because of Schauble's staunch austerity position are ridiculous, so is the world beginning to react to other propaganda machines that try to portray the Gulf in a perpetually bad light, or - frankly - any Arab nation and/or nation that bucked the USA trend.

You don't understand the first thing about sanctions policy or you'd see the great motivation here, that I've alluded to - money. The repeated cries of 'omg Iran...bad!' are dying in the air that is being moved by the celebratory style of many, many people. Have you read the Annexes to the Agreement? Are you seeing the money that's on the line? That'll flood back into Iran in a consistent manner in addition to all of the assets that have been frozen by third countries (when the designations end).

And with that money, Iran will emerge as a regional power, change the regional dynamic again, and finally upset the problem that was created by having a lone nuclear power in a region like that one.

And, on those worried about non-proliferation - even Pakistan has the bomb! Did they use it? Read:

"Another oft-touted worry is that if Iran obtains the bomb, other states in the region will follow suit, leading to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But the nuclear age is now almost 70 years old, and so far, fears of proliferation have proved to be unfounded. Properly defined, the term "proliferation" means a rapid and uncontrolled spread. Nothing like that has occurred; in fact, since 1970, there has been a marked slowdown in the emergence of nuclear states. There is no reason to expect that this pattern will change now. Should Iran become the second Middle Eastern nuclear power since 1945, it would hardly signal the start of a landslide. When Israel acquired the bomb in the 1960s, it was at war with many of its neighbors. Its nuclear arms were a much bigger threat to the Arab world than Iran's program is today. If an atomic Israel did not trigger an arms race then, there is no reason a nuclear Iran should now."

From a great article entitled "Why Iran should have the bomb" - it's very thought provoking:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2012-06-15/why-iran-should-get-bomb