Landmark Deal reached on Iran's Nuclear Program

Unless you have been living under a rock, P5+1 (US, China, Russia, France, UK + Germany) reached a deal with Iran. In exchange for easing sanctions, Iran will not build a nuclear weapon and its nuclear sites open to IAEA inspections. Here's a link from CNN.

So OT what do you think? A historic deal or is Obama the New Chamberlain?

Wow.. so you think Obama finally roped in China and Russia as his bitches and steered entirely at his sole discretion with his EU Pomeranian in tow? Well I... think that's quite frankly stupid as hell.

It is too early to make a definitive call on [whether Congress should approve] the deal. Many details will come out in the next few weeks as the deal gets discussed in the Senate. I look forward to the debate and analysis. Some articles to get your beak wet:

• Key Democrats skeptical of Iran deal
• With the Nuclear Deal, the US and Iran Start a New Chapter
• Obama’s Iran Agreement: A Bad Deal for America, a Bad Deal for Middle East Peace
• The Single Most Important Question to Ask About the Iran Deal

It's progress I guess (the sanctions weren't really stopping their nuclear progress anyway) and not everyone will be happy with it. At least its shows that negotiation is possible, even though it will only postpone the problem for the next 15 years, but with the problems in that region it is always useful to have such a major player in that region 'on your side'...

The U.S really loathes the Middle East. I can't think of any other reason that would compel the U.S to relieve Iran and releases it from its isolation.

i have no clue why iran should be denied the bomb in the first place.

they are certainly more stable than others that already have it.

Plus they would be investing billions into weapons they would never use tying up money that could be used more effectively elsewhere.

i swear to god every goddamn issue you care to name anymore is nothing but putting band-aids on minor issues to make peoples boo boos feel better while the shit that matters never even gets mentioned.

@CreasianDevaili:

Those countries are a part of the Permanent Security Council with Germany along with the ride.... They're negotiating. It's what heads of states and representatives do...

@Riverwolf007:

There was an argument that if Iran did have a nuclear weapon, it wouldn't do anything other than modernize Iran or something like that. I don't remember the article or the exact argument. That said, Iran was a signatory of the Non-proliferation treaty which stated that Iran could not develop nuclear weapons but could develop nuclear energy for peaceful means (which Iran is claiming it's doing). However, there are accusations that Iran has been developing nuclear weapons during Ahmadinejad's presidency and rightfully so.

Iran getting the bomb has other consequences but not for the reasons you think. No, I don't believe Iran is stupid enough to attack Israel and Israel's saber-rattling is nonsense (Nety has been saying the same thing since 1995 that Iran is developing the bomb but nothing) but Iran's influence in the region is alive and well and their interests run contrary to ours. It's something to look out for but not worth going for war unless our allies and/or the U.S. is attacked.

That said, I support the deal and it seems reasonable and pragmatic. Iran quits its ambitions developing the bomb, we give Iranians relief from sanctions. Everyone benefits. Hopefully our congress and Iran's politicians support the deal as well.

Im skeptical.

The sanctions/isolation on Iran were ineffective as-is and the international coalition implementing them was falling apart. Sanctions only really work if everyone (or nearly everyone) is involved in them, and their high water mark had already passed.

It really boils down to alternatives: There aren't any good ones.

@GazaAli: Last I heard it was Iran and their leaders chanting Death to America.

Fucking christ, Obama just basically saved the world.

As if taking out Osama, free healthcare, and legal gay marriage weren't already world changing.

Is there any doubts that he historically will be spoken of in the same line as Washington and Lincoln?

Iran’s political strategy is not vested in verified reciprocity or respect. Iran focuses on the physical and ideological expansion of Khomeinism throughout the Middle East.

Does this deal significantly reduce the chance that Iran could, in the foreseeable future (20 years is the time period Obama mentioned in aninterview with me in May), continue its nefarious activities under the protection of a nuclear umbrella? If the answer to this question is yes, then a deal, in theory, is worth supporting.

How misguided are these journalists?

@JimB: Considering the U.S. is the very reason Iran is a theocracy I'd say they are warranted in hating you.

So they build one in a secret underground lab they don't tell anyone about.

If they want a bomb, they'll build one. Might as well just keep sanctions in place until they can replace the government with something more modern and secular.

We'll have to wait and see how things go in 5 or 10 years. It's too early to judge right now as only deal has been reached and nothing has actually started to take effect.

I know what they are. I was going against the comment you made sure to leave that made it sound as if you actually think Obama had all of them doing what he wanted for this deal with Iran and the good or bad falls all on him. I don't like him much, but that was such a idiotic comment, unless you actually believe it which means.. wow.

@foxhound_fox:

Sanctions haven't been working. In fact, it kind of creates tensions between the people and the country placing sanctions since it makes the government more sympathetic which kind of destroys any attempt of secularizing the government...

What are you talking about? Where did I say Obama had all of them doing what he wanted? In fact, wtf are you talking about?

@Aljosa23: Maybe instead of giving them the bomb in a deal we should have given it to them from the belly of a B-2 stealth bomber.

Relieving Iran of economic suffocation isn't a valid alternative either. Iran abets and harbors the insurgency that destabilized Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. Its influence on the Palestinian scene has always been there too. The conclusion is that economic suffocation couldn't deter Iran. You can see where I'm going with this.

My personal take on this deal is that it signifies the American shift away from traditional allies in the region and into Iran. The American regime arrived at the conclusion that it can't bypass Iran in realizing its strategies and protecting its interests in the region; if you can't beat them, join them. It'll backfire however: Iran won't share the spoils with anyone. It'll give the U.S the finger before it's too long. In fact, it's written all over this clunky deal.

No, you're misinterpreting the situation/what I'm saying: It's not just that the economic sanctions were ineffective as they stood - it's that the international coalition that implemented them and made them effective in any capacity is falling apart. The countries involved want access to the Iran markets, and if that coalition falls apart they lose any bit of bite that they had - and at that point a deal (any deal) becomes unobtainable.

so my understanding is that everyone is upset

I laughed when Nancy Pelosi said she read this agreement in its entirety.

free healthcare? Where is that?

I was wondering when we were going to get around to discussing this. Ultimately I think that getting Iran to agree to willingly step away from making a nuke is a good thing for the world in general.

If Obama was involved, the US Congress as is will do anything to undo it, regardless of whether or not it's a good agreement. That's just the way American politics works these days.

It's a good deal, Republicans and Israel are automatically against it no surprise.

I don't trust the Iranians and I think Obama wanted this deal too much and that made it easier for the Iranians to get a better deal.

From what I understand the Israelis and the Saudis are hopping mad, but I wonder how much the Arabs and the Israelis are willing to cooperate with each other? I don't think Iran can win a war against either Israel or an Arab coalition though they can certainly cause enough trouble if the U.S. doesn't intervene.

One issue that has received attention is the plight of the 4 U.S. citizens being held prisoner in Iran and the decision of the administration not to have tied their release into the negotiations. Obama said that that decision was done because the administration thought doing so would lead to the Iranians using them as "bargaining chips" in order to extract more concessions from the U.S., but now that the deal is done what leverage does the U.S. have for getting their release? If I were president I would have made the release of those four citizens a prerequisite for continuing negotiations, but then again it seems that Obama wanted this deal a lot more than I do.

Also there is one part of the deal that seems plain stupid to me: the deal involves lifting the embargo on conventional weapons and ballistic missiles being sold to Iran, so now the possibility of Russia and China selling weapons to Iran is open.

The Senate is very unlikely to ratify, so it is not so much a deal between the U.S. and Iran as it is a deal between the Obama Administration and Iran that is unbinding on Obama's successor. But a future president going against the deal would not get other countries to re-impose their sanctions, though the U.S. reimpose sanctions, if those sanctions can even be lifted in the first place without Congressional approval. Either way the Iran deal will likely be an issue in the 2016 elections, and I don't think Democrats want 2016 to be a national security election since Republicans traditionally poll better on that issue than Democrats do (though Dems did poll better on the issue in the later years of the Bush Administration and up until recently, but I think Repubs regained that lead in 2013 or 2014).

Considering the situation it seems to me that overall Iran is the big beneficiary of the Bush Administration (certainly unwilling here) and the Obama situation. And the way things have been going in Iraq with much of that country either under ISIS control or Iranian influence and now with this Iran deal, I have been thinking that maybe what Bush should have done in 2002 and 2003 was jettison his father's and Bill Clinton's policy of containing Iraq and aiming for a regime change (which Bush I and Clinton hoped a military coup would accomplish though Clinton eventually realized that that wouldn't happen), and instead reach out to Saddam and re-kindle an alliance with Saddam Hussein in order to keep Iran in check. From what I heard about the FBI interrogations of Hussein he seemed to be more afraid of Iran than he was of the U.S., which was why he wanted to give the impression that he had WMD, and Saddam's miscalculation was that he figured Bush II would not invade, he would just do some air strikes like Clinton did. This whole situation with Iraq and Obama's red line in Syria reminds me of something Ra's al Ghul said in this season of Arrow: He said that Mr. Queen thinks the League's threats are idle and he must be corrected in this belief. And I do feel that some of the U.S. actions do send the message that our threats are idle, and when one president gives that impression, it increases the likelihood that his successor will be forced to take action in order to "correct" those who believe our threats are idle.

War is a thing that should not be rushed into, but if a country's leaders are too afraid of war to take a strong stand, this invites aggression and may make a war more likely.