I mostly base my acceptance of this being a good deal on the opinion of a wide range of experts in the field that say this is a surprisingly good deal for the US. Those criticizing it from what I've seen have mostly been political actors. Their opinions carry a lot less weight for reasons that should be obvious.
So again, what would be the 'good' or 'better' outcome that you mentioned, and what is a realistic path for achieving it? Be specific. This deal doesn't have to be perfect to be the smart move, it has to be better than the alternatives. I have yet to see a single plausible alternative that's better.
EDIT: Seriously, lay out your alternative path specifically and clearly, along with steps on how to accomplish it. Don't keep concern trolling.
You don't understand. It's not about the deal- it's about Obama. Whatever he does is wrong, by definition. All the rest of it flows from there.
That was obvious from DSF's opening post in this thread.
Remember how he asked me to elaborate, then completely ignored the post where I did?
That's because he & a lot of other people are caught in Bush Admin framing & the face saving Obama Admin propaganda about sanctions.
It's never really been about nuclear weapons but rather ending our long standing policy of isolation & regime change wrt Iran. That's over. Iran used their nuclear program to accomplish it. If they're as smart as they seem, they'll boy scout this agreement & push for an end to all trade restrictions.
If that was their goal, and I think it has been, then they've done it adroitly. I don't have to like them to respect the way they've handled themselves.
They have a strong hand in their people, their natural resources & their strategic location. They've developed a strong game to go with it. They won't be bullied & they won't likely do anything colossally stupid, either, like attempting a breakout into nuclear weapons production.
Last edited:
