Iran nuclear deal

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 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.

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 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 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 wrote: »

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.

Islamic fascism has roots far deeper and older than the 1979 revolution. The House of Saud's rise to power was built on an alliance with Wahabist sects, a partnership that continues through to today. That's not even taking into account the aggressive, expansionist nature of Islam as a whole.

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

....Was nearly half a century before fascism's rise to prominence in the world!
The House of Saud is 260 years old!

I think you are confusing fascism with plain old feudalism/monarchism.....
or you are vaguely trying to defend the ayatollahs via whataboutery.

Islamofascism is a relatively modern descriptor.

I'm doing neither, I was replying to a statement stating that Islamic extremism is a recent phenomenon. Islamofascism being a modern term doesn't make it an inaccurate description of previous events.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

How so? The Crusades were fought because the Islamic groups were attacking Christian pilgrims. The Reconquista was fought to reclaim Iberia from Moorish (Muslim) power. The Balkans were the battleground between the Christian West and the Islamic Ottoman Empire for centuries. The current incarnation of Islamist extremist (using online media, for instance) might be new but Islamic extremism as a whole is nowhere near new. It is centuries old.

I know, I was countering another poster who posited that it arose after the 79 Revolution.

IrishTrajan wrote: »

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

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

The latter. Unfortunately.

The problem with all discussions about Iran is the acceptance of the underlying assumptions that Iran needs to be discussed, parsed, examined, and generally treated as "someone to watch" so to speak. It's as if one is contemplating allowing a convicted felon into their neighbourhood, never mind that said felon has already paid his/her debt. Personally, I don't think even felons ought to be treated that way, but fear is a powerful force.

But Iran?

Any real threats in the middle east emanate from Israel (and lately, IS) and, of course, America. If anyone should be under scrutiny over questions like, "what if they develop Nuclear Weapons" it should be the biggest murderers in the region, it seems to me. Gee, I wonder who that is. But of course, the question would seem absurd in that case. Seem.

The real problem is two fold. Firstly that any discussion about Iran in the United States is not going to be anywhere near as rationale as in this forum; ie, in this country. Unfortunately, those American discussions are the ones that matter.

Secondly, neocon agendas and how Israel interacts with those agendas. Someone argued that America will not decide based on Israel's interests. That may be true, but America will decide based on the interests of the military industrial complex and those tend to coincide nicely with Israeli desires. War is profitable. But war with nuclear powers is tricky. No one has attacked N.Korea or staged coups or baited them endlessly.

Another problem is what happens when political developments go against the designs of that power base. Rightly or wrongly, it has been argued effectively by Robert Parry and others that the coup in Ukraine, the campaign against Russia and Putin specifically, etc, etc, is a direct result of Russia helping Obama out of a fix, which was what to do about Syria. Arguably, perhaps Russia made attacking Syria impossible, or maybe it just provided Obama an out from internal pressures. We'll never know. But certain parties will not forgive Russia. Remember what General Wesley Clark (who is now advocating internment camps in the US) said about neocon plans for the middle east when he was running for president (a speech that delighted progressives no end).

Personally, I think the whole idea of Iran getting a bomb is a storm in a teacup. For one thing, their Ayatollahs have said that nuclear arming is against their religion and I believe them. This doesn't mean things can change, but it does reveal an attitude. Furthermore, I don't care if they get such a bomb, they'll never dare use it. Contrary to cartoon ideas of enemies, states and state leaders do not tend to embark upon clearly suicidal paths. I also think that if anyone has such a weapon, then probably everyone should have such a weapon. Which admittedly is a principle that raises trepidation within myself, so I say it with stuttering voice and high anxiety - which translates to a dreadful lack of certainty and a search for a way to have my cake and eat it too.